United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60217

Summary Calendar

____________

Gaganpreet Singh, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A205 937 309

______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Gaganpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of 

the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion 

to reopen. He challenges the BIA’s determination that the motion failed to 

show a material change in country conditions in India. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 12, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60217 Document: 00516998852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2023
No. 23-60217

2

We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a highly deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Nunez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499, 505 (5th Cir. 

2018). Under that standard, we will not disturb the BIA’s denial of reopening 

unless the decision is “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without 

foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather 

than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed under 

the substantial evidence standard, which means that we will not reverse the 

factual findings “unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id.

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Constitutional claims and 

questions of law are reviewed de novo. Fuentes-Pena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 827, 

829 (5th Cir. 2019).

“Showing changed country conditions requires making a meaningful 

comparison between the conditions at the time of the removal hearing and 

the conditions at the time the alien filed [his] motion to reopen.” Id. at 508. 

The evidence must demonstrate more than “the continuation of a trend” or 

“incremental change.” Id. at 508-09.

Singh argues that he demonstrated a material change in country 

conditions based on four developments: (1) the reelection of Prime Minister 

Narendra Modi in the national elections of May 2019 and the victory of the 

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in that election; (2) the targeting of Singh’s 

father, who was the village lambardar, after his father reported a violation by 

a villager who was a Hindu member of the BJP; (3) the harassment of Singh’s 

family for his father’s participation in protests of agricultural laws enacted in 

India in 2020; and (4) the rise of Hindu nationalism since Prime Minister 

Modi’s reelection.

The evidence Singh provided in support of reopening does not show 

a material change in country conditions in India compared to the time of the

Case: 23-60217 Document: 00516998852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2023
No. 23-60217

3

August 2017 hearing on the merits of his application for relief. At most, the 

evidence shows “the continuation of a trend” or “incremental change.” 

Nunez, 882 F.3d at 508-09. Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in 

determining that he failed to make the requisite showing of changed country 

conditions. See id. at 508-10; Deep v. Barr, 967 F.3d 498, 502 (5th Cir. 2020); 

Singh v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 220, 222 (5th Cir. 2016).

Singh also argues that the BIA violated his right to due process 

because the BIA failed to consider his evidence of increased Hindu 

nationalism. Singh’s motion to reopen adequately raised the issue of 

increased Hindu nationalism to place the BIA on notice of it for purposes of 

exhaustion under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). See Abubaker Abushagif v. Garland, 

15 F.4th 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2021). The BIA is not required to “write an 

exegesis on every contention” but must consider the issues raised before it 

and provide a decision “sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that 

it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Deep, 967 F.3d at 503 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

While the BIA did not include increased Hindu nationalism in its list 

of circumstances that Singh claimed as changes in country conditions, the 

BIA’s listed circumstances mirrored the three-item list Singh provided in his 

motion to reopen. Singh’s claims of increased Hindu nationalism went hand 

in hand with his arguments that Prime Minister Modi’s reelection and the 

recent targeting of his family constituted a material change in country 

conditions. The BIA’s decision reflects that it considered whether there was 

a material change in country conditions due to those circumstances, and 

there is no indication that the BIA failed to take into account the totality of 

the evidence presented by Singh. Singh’s argument is unavailing. See Deep, 

967 F.3d at 503.

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 23-60217 Document: 00516998852 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/12/2023