Court Opinion

ID: 9840926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 18:00:35.603948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:58.223530
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60117         Document: 00516901788             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/20/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-60117
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                             September 20, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Sukhmaan 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. 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.
Case: 23-60117      Document: 00516901788            Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/20/2023

                                      No. 23-60117

          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 fails to 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

                                           2
Case: 23-60117     Document: 00516901788           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/20/2023

                                    No. 23-60117

   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.

                                         3