Court Opinion

ID: 9386338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 14:00:27.747684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:06.026055
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11620   Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/12/2023    Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                                No. 22-11620
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       CHARANJIT SINGH,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                         ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A201-424-481
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11620     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 04/12/2023    Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court               22-11620

       Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
            Charanjit Singh seeks review of the Board of Immigration
       Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen his application for asylum.
       We deny Singh’s petition for review of the Board’s decision.
                                        I.
             Singh is a native and citizen of India. In 2018, he was
       detained immediately after entering the United States. He applied
       for asylum, claiming that he had been attacked due to his
       membership in a Sikh political organization. After an August 2019
       hearing, his application was denied by an immigration judge, who
       found him not to be credible. That denial was affirmed by the
       Board of Immigration Appeals in February 2020, and this Court
       denied Singh’s petition for review of the decision of the Board. See
       Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 828 F. App’x 579, 581–82 (11th Cir. 2020).
               In March 2021, Singh filed a motion to reopen consideration
       of his application with the Board. As Singh himself acknowledged,
       his motion was well past the ordinary 90-day filing deadline for a
       motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R.
       § 1003.2(c)(2). But this 90-day limit does not apply to motions to
       reopen asylum applications that are “based on changed
       circumstances arising in the country of nationality” if “such
       evidence is material and was not available and could not have been
USCA11 Case: 22-11620      Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 04/12/2023    Page: 3 of 6

       22-11620                Opinion of the Court                        3

       discovered or presented at the previous hearing.”             8 C.F.R.
       § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
               Singh argued that this exception to the 90-day filing deadline
       applied to his motion to reopen because it was based on changed
       circumstances in India. He claimed that there had been an increase
       in political violence against Sikh activists in India, and that
       members of a rival political party had attacked and raped his wife.
       Along with other exhibits, he provided the Board with news
       articles about violence in India and affidavits and medical records
       about the alleged attack on his wife.
              The Board denied Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely. It
       concluded that he had not submitted the material evidence of
       changed circumstances in India necessary to trigger the exception
       to the filing deadline. It noted that Singh’s evidence was
       insufficient to show a material change in circumstances in India
       since his original petition for asylum was denied. It also noted that
       Singh could not overcome the prior adverse credibility finding
       against him. And it found that, even if it credited the testimony
       that Singh’s wife had been attacked and raped, the alleged rape was
       a change in personal circumstances rather than a change in the
       country’s circumstances. Singh now asks this Court to reverse the
       Board’s denial of his motion to reopen.
                                         II.
             We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for
       abuse of discretion. Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319
USCA11 Case: 22-11620       Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 04/12/2023      Page: 4 of 6

       4                        Opinion of the Court                   22-11620

       (11th Cir. 2009). Motions to reopen are “disfavored,” and we will
       only reverse a denial of a motion to reopen if the Board “exercised
       its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Id. We review
       the Board’s findings of fact under the “highly deferential substantial
       evidence test,” meaning that we “view the record evidence in the
       light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all
       reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Adefemi v.
       Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026–27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
                                          III.
              Singh’s appeal turns on the Board’s factual finding that he
       failed to show materially changed circumstances in India since
       August 2019—the time of his last hearing. See 8 U.S.C.
       § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). If that finding stands,
       then his motion to reopen was untimely. See 8 U.S.C.
       § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
              Singh points to two broad categories of evidence in his
       motion that he claims showed a material change in circumstances
       in India: the articles that he claims shows increased political
       persecution of Sikh activists, and the evidence about the attack on
       his wife. After review of the record, we are unpersuaded on both
       counts, and we conclude that the Board’s finding that Singh failed
       to show materially changed conditions in India was supported by
       substantial evidence.
             As for the increased political persecution, Singh asks us to
       conclude that he now faces a substantially greater risk of being
USCA11 Case: 22-11620     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/12/2023    Page: 5 of 6

       22-11620               Opinion of the Court                        5

       charged with sedition upon return to India. But the articles that he
       included with his motion simply do not say that there has been a
       rise of political prosecutions of members of Singh’s political
       organization since August 2019; instead, they provide high-level
       discussion of sedition prosecutions, corruption, police brutality,
       and political conflict around Sikh activism without meaningfully
       connecting these phenomena to each other or to any material
       change since August 2019. Even if someone trying to argue in
       Singh’s favor could use some of the evidence he provided as
       support, we “draw all reasonable inferences” in favor of the Board’s
       decision. See Adefemi, 386 F.3d at 1027. Applying that standard,
       the Board’s discounting of the articles was supported by substantial
       evidence.
              Likewise, the Board’s finding that the alleged rape of Singh’s
       wife did not show a change in national circumstances was also
       supported by substantial evidence. As horrible as these allegations
       are, Singh did not provide evidence linking the allegations to a
       material change since August 2019 in how other Sikhs or members
       of Singh’s political organization were treated throughout India.
       Without this link, the Board’s treatment of these allegations as
       being about a change in personal circumstances rather than a
       change in national circumstances was supported by substantial
       evidence.
              This resolves Singh’s appeal. Because the Board’s finding
       that there had been no material change in circumstances in India
       was supported by substantial evidence, the ordinary 90-day time
USCA11 Case: 22-11620    Document: 23-1    Date Filed: 04/12/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                    Opinion of the Court              22-11620

       limit applied to Singh’s motion. So the Board did not abuse its
       discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely.
             We DENY Singh’s petition.