United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60117 

Summary Calendar

____________

Sukhmaan Singh, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A208 191 787

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

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

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying his motion to reopen. He 

contends the BIA erred by: determining he failed to demonstrate changed 

country conditions; and failing to recognize the nexus between the changed 

country conditions and his fear of persecution. 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 20, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60117 Document: 00516901788 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2023
No. 23-60117

2

The BIA’s denial to reopen is reviewed understandably under a highly 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. E.g., Nunez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 

499, 505 (5th Cir. 2018) (outlining standard of review). Its decision will not 

be disturbed unless it 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. (citation omitted). 

“[T]o prevail on a motion to reopen alleging changed country conditions 

where the persecution claim was previously denied based on an adverse 

credibility finding in the underlying proceedings, the respondent must either 

overcome the prior determination or show that the new claim is independent 

of the evidence that was found to be not credible”. Matter of F-S-N-, 28 I. & 

N. Dec. 1, 3 (BIA 2020) (denying motion to reopen).

Singh failsto overcome the prior adverse credibility determination. In 

making it, the immigration judge (IJ) pointed out Singh gave inconsistent or 

conflicting information regarding: the nature of his affiliation with the Mann 

Party (Indian political party), several significant details about the first attack,

and his parents’ and brother’s affiliation with the Mann Party. The BIA 

determined Singh’s motion failed to address the IJ’s adverse credibility 

determination underlying the denial of the prior application. Singh also does 

not attempt to address, before our court, the IJ’s concerns regarding the 

inconsistencies in his testimony. Therefore, Singh fails to show the BIA’s 

decision was “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”. Nunez, 882 F.3d 505 (citation 

omitted).

Singh also fails in challenging the BIA’s conclusion that he did not

present a new claim independent from the evidence previously found not 

credible. See F-S-N-, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 3. Singh’s motion to reopen required 

“new facts” and to “be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary 

Case: 23-60117 Document: 00516901788 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2023
No. 23-60117

3

material”. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B)(outlining content required for motions

to reopen); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (outlining requirements for motions to 

reopen before BIA); Nunez, 882 F.3d at 508.

The “new” allegations presented in Singh’s motion are: India passed 

the Indian Agricultural Acts of 2020 and widespread protests resulted. 

Singh’s new allegations rely on his affiliation with the Mann Party and the 

alleged political persecution of its supporters—a continuation of his prior 

claim and not independent of the adverse credibility determination 

underlying the denial of the claim.

The evidence provided fails to prove a material change in country 

conditions in India compared to the time of his 2017 merits hearing. At most, 

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

Nunez, 882 F.3d at 508–09 (holding neither sufficient to show changed 

country conditions). 

DENIED.

Case: 23-60117 Document: 00516901788 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/20/2023