Court Opinion

ID: 9916859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 19:01:08.42892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:04.619405
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60239        Document: 00517028288             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/10/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                           January 10, 2024
                                      No. 23-60239
                                    Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                  Clerk

   Manpreet Singh,

                                                                                   Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A201 422 426
                     ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Manpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
   the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision to dismiss his appeal from
   the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum,
   withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
   Torture (CAT).

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60239      Document: 00517028288          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                    No. 23-60239

          Singh is a worker for the Mann party. He claims that he suffered
   persecution when he was attacked and threatened twice by members a rival
   political party, the Congress party. The first attack was in June 2018. Singh
   was hanging Mann party posters when members of the Congress party
   approached him. Singh said that after he refused their offer to sell drugs for
   them, they punched and kicked him in the stomach for about seven minutes.
   He was taken to a doctor, where he received medicine and ointment. Singh
   testified that when he tried to report the attack to the police, they threatened
   to arrest him. The second attack was three months later. Singh said he was
   returning from a Mann party event when another group of men warned him
   to leave the Mann party and beat him, this time with sticks for about ten
   minutes. Singh was again taken to a doctor, treated for about two hours, and
   given a tetanus shot and some cream.
          Singh fled India and entered the United States in December 2018,
   seeking asylum based on political persecution and fear of torture. The IJ
   denied his application, and the BIA dismissed his appeal. Singh petitioned
   this court for review. He contends that the BIA erred in determining that he
   failed to show that he was subjected to past persecution, that he did not have
   a well-founded fear of future persecution, and that he was not entitled to
   protection under the CAT.
          We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to
   the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th
   Cir. 2018). We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and
   legal determinations de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th
   Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may
   not overturn a factual finding unless the evidence compels a contrary result.
   8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 769 (5th Cir.
   2019) (per curiam).

                                          2
Case: 23-60239      Document: 00517028288          Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                    No. 23-60239

          First we consider the BIA’s determination that Singh did not suffer
   persecution. Persecution “is not harassment, intimidation, threats, or even
   assault.” Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2020). Rather, it “is a
   specific term that does not encompass all treatment that our society regards
   as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional.” Id. (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). Persecution requires “a sustained,
   systematic effort to target an individual on the basis of a protected ground,”
   so “even those subject to brutal physical attack are not necessarily victims of
   ‘persecution.’” Id. at 397–98. And “threats that are exaggerated, non-
   specific, or lacking in immediacy” are insufficient to show past persecution.
   Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 407 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
          We have previously considered cases with similar facts and held that
   these allegations are not extreme enough to compel a finding of past
   persecution. See Gjetani, 968 F.3d at 398 (collecting cases); Qorane v. Barr,
   919 F.3d 904, 909 (5th Cir. 2019) (explaining that threats of incarceration are
   not persecution, and neither are death “threats that are exaggerated, non-
   specific, or lacking in immediacy” (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted)). Accordingly, the evidence does not compel a finding of past
   persecution. See Martinez-Lopez, 943 F.3d at 769.
          “To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, an alien must
   demonstrate a subjective fear of persecution, and that fear must be
   objectively reasonable.” Gjetani, 968 F.3d at 399 (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted). An applicant cannot establish a well-founded fear of
   persecution if he could “avoid persecution by relocating to another part of
   his home country.” Munoz-Granados, 958 F.3d at 407 (citation omitted). And
   where, as here, an applicant “does not show past persecution” or
   “demonstrate that a national government is the persecutor, the applicant
   bears the burden of showing that the persecution is not geographically limited

                                          3
Case: 23-60239      Document: 00517028288           Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                     No. 23-60239

   in such a way that relocation within the applicant’s country of origin would
   be unreasonable.” Lopez-Gomez, 263 F.3d at 445. Substantial evidence
   supports the BIA’s determination that Singh has not carried his burden of
   demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution. Singh concedes that
   he was not attacked by government officials and only provides speculative
   assertions that he cannot relocate because it would be easy for any rival
   political party to find and target him.
          Thus, Singh cannot show that he was entitled to asylum. See Sharma
   v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Because Singh “failed to
   establish the less stringent well-founded fear standard of proof required for
   asylum relief,” he cannot meet the more stringent burden for withholding of
   removal. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658–59 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Finally, to show entitlement to relief under the CAT, Singh must
   prove that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the
   consent or acquiescence of public officials if he returns to India. See 8 C.F.R.
   §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Singh argues that he is entitled to protection
   under the CAT because the record establishes that it is more likely than not
   that he will be tortured by the Indian police or government if forced to return
   to India. But he concedes that he was not attacked by government officials.
   We thus agree with the BIA that Singh is not entitled to protection under the
   CAT. See Martinez-Lopez, 943 F.3d at 769.
          The petition for review is therefore DENIED.

                                             4