Court Opinion

ID: 9390198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 00:00:54.62117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:32.520268
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60395        Document: 00516727360             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/26/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                     FILED
                                      No. 22-60395
                                                                                 April 26, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   Amardeep Singh,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A215 541 509
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Amardeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
   a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal
   from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) concluding that he was ineligible
   for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
   Torture (CAT). Insofar as he contends that this court should remand the

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60395      Document: 00516727360           Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/26/2023

                                     No. 22-60395

   case to have his future persecution claim reconsidered on the evidence in the
   record, this argument lacks merit because he does not seek to present to the
   BIA an issue that it has not had a chance to consider. See Siwe v. Holder, 742
   F.3d 603, 612 (5th Cir. 2014).          Insofar as he challenges the BIA’s
   discretionary decision to assign his case to a one-member panel, we lack
   jurisdiction to consider this exercise of discretion. See Cantu-Delgadillo v.
   Holder, 584 F.3d 682, 691 (5th Cir. 2009).
          We review the denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims for
   substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
   Pursuant to this standard, we may not disturb the BIA’s decision unless the
   evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion. Id. (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted). Additionally, we consider the IJ’s decision only insofar as
   it influences the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
          With respect to asylum and withholding, Singh has not met this
   standard because he cites nothing compelling a conclusion contrary to that of
   the agency on the issue whether he showed past persecution or a likelihood
   of future persecution in India. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 402 (5th
   Cir. 2021); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002); see also Kumar
   v. Garland, 52 F.4th 957, 970 (5th Cir. 2022), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Jan.
   19, 2023) (No. 22-681); Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 224-25,
   228 (5th Cir. 2019). His arguments concerning CAT relief likewise fail
   because he has not shown that the record compels a conclusion contrary to
   that of the BIA on the issue whether he more likely than not would be
   tortured if repatriated. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir.
   2017); see also Tibakweitira v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 905, 911 (5th Cir. 2021).
   Finally, his due process argument is unavailing because he has not shown
   “that the alleged violation affected the outcome of the proceeding.” See
   Arteaga-Ramirez v. Barr, 954 F.3d 812, 813 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

                                           2
Case: 22-60395    Document: 00516727360        Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/26/2023

                                No. 22-60395

           The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
   part.

                                     3