Court Opinion

ID: 9909340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 01:00:39.026159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:05.771594
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60217         Document: 00516998852             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/12/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-60217
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              December 12, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Gaganpreet Singh,                                                                   Clerk

                                                                                  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.
Case: 23-60217      Document: 00516998852           Page: 2     Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                     No. 23-60217

          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

                                           2
Case: 23-60217        Document: 00516998852        Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/12/2023

                                    No. 23-60217

   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.

                                          3