Court Opinion

ID: 9965886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 18:00:38.616266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:50.278158
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60342            Document: 47-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/03/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                   May 3, 2024
                                    No. 23-60342
                                                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                   ____________
                                                                                        Clerk

Akashpreet Singh,

                                                                               Petitioner,

                                          versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                             Respondent.
                   ______________________________

                  Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals
                            Agency No. A240 743 912
                   ______________________________

Before Dennis, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Akashpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks asylum on the
ground that members of his country’s ruling party physically abused him on
several occasions due to his affiliation with the opposing political party. Both
the IJ and the Board of Immigration Appeals found that Singh failed to
adequately show that he was persecuted in the past or that there was a
reasonable possibility of persecution upon return to his country.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60342        Document: 47-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/03/2024

       For the following reasons, we deny the petition for review.
                                      ***
       We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s ruling only to the
extent it impacted the BIA’s decision. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th
Cir. 2009). The substantial evidence standard of review applies to the factual
conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum, “even when the [BIA has]
determine[d] the alien is credible and accept[ed] his version of the facts.”
Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 396 (5th Cir. 2020). Under substantial
evidence review, reversal is improper unless this court decides “not only that
the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence
compels it.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
       Singh presents three arguments on appeal.
       First, Singh challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. However,
since the BIA assumed Singh was credible and did not reach the merits of the
IJ’s adverse credibility ruling, Singh’s challenge to that ruling is not properly
before us and, accordingly, we will not consider it. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536.
       Second, Singh argues that the BIA erred in affirming that he failed to
establish past persecution for his asylum claim. Asylum may be granted to an
individual who is unable or unwilling to return to his home country because
of past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a
statutorily protected ground, such as religion or political opinion. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A); Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007). If he
cannot show past persecution, the asylum applicant must demonstrate a
Case: 23-60342       Document: 47-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/03/2024

subjective fear of future persecution that is objectively reasonable. See Chen,
470 F.3d at 1135.
       Persecution “is an extreme concept that does not include every sort
of treatment our society regards as offensive.” Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d
812, 816 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our
circuit has established that even brutal physical attacks or egregious violent
behavior may not qualify as persecution. Gjetani, 968 F.3d at 398 (citing
cases in which assaults leading to a loss of consciousness, hospitalization, a
broken rib, or physical deformity with scars were not deemed persecution).
Moreover, we have indicated that “regular and methodical targeting” with
an “organized, relentless campaign” of threats and violence is necessary for
persecution, id., and that threats lacking in specificity and immediacy are
insufficient. Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 910 (5th Cir. 2019).
       In this case, Singh argues that he was subject to threats and attacks
because of his affiliation with an opposing political party. While the BIA
noted that Singh was beaten two times, the record shows that he was beaten
three times—twice by members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the
ruling party, and once by the police. While the BIA did not characterize the
incident with the police as a third beating, it did acknowledge and consider
that Singh was held in police custody and was assaulted by police officers.
       Singh eventually moved to his uncle’s home in a different village, and
then fled to India. After leaving India, Singh learned that BJP members
approached his family members, who threatened to kill Singh if he returned
to his country. While this evidence certainly indicates that Singh was the
victim of “a handful of assaults [and] threats,” it does not establish that he
suffered “a systematic, sustained pattern of assaults.” Gjetani, 968 F.3d at
395, 398 (no persecution when a member of a minority political party was
threatened three times within a two-week span). Accordingly, the evidence
Case: 23-60342       Document: 47-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 05/03/2024

does not compel a factual finding that he suffered past persecution. See Chen,
470 F.3d at 1134.
       Finally, we decline to reach the issue whether Singh established an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution, which the BIA deemed
forfeited on appeal. According to the Government, the BIA forfeited the
argument and, thus, the objective-reasonableness issue is unexhausted at the
administrative level. We may review a final removal order only if all available
administrative remedies have been exhausted. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see
Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 257 (5th Cir. 2023).
       Although Singh summarily asserted in his BIA brief that the IJ erred
in finding that he failed to demonstrate a credible fear of future persecution,
Singh neither set forth the legal standard for establishing an objectively
reasonable fear of future persecution nor provided an explanation for how he
satisfied that standard. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1135-36 (setting forth the
applicable standard). Because it is “not enough to merely mention or allude
to a legal theory,” Singh forfeited this issue before the BIA and thus did not
exhaust his administrative remedies on that point. Santos-Alvarado v. Barr,
967 F.3d 428, 440 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see Carreon, 71 F.4th at 257.
       For these reasons, the petition for review is denied.