Court Opinion

ID: 9940444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 16:01:53.724215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:52.139500
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11924   Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 02/14/2024    Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11924
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

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

                                                              Respondent.

                          ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A216-265-942
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11924      Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 02/14/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11924

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Gurmanpreet Singh petitions for review of the Board of Im-
       migration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for asylum,
       withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Con-
       vention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
       Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). He argues that the BIA’s de-
       cision upholding an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) finding that his tes-
       timony was not credible is not supported by substantial evidence.
              When, as here, the BIA adopts the reasoning of an IJ’s deci-
       sion, we review both decisions. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
       577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). Factual and credibility deter-
       minations are reviewed for substantial evidence. Forgue v. U.S.
       Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). The decision is af-
       firmed if the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the deci-
       sion, shows that the decision was supported by substantial, reason-
       able, probative evidence. Id. An adverse credibility finding must
       be based on specific and cogent reasons. Id. at 1287. To reverse an
       adverse credibility determination, the applicant must show that the
       record compels reversal. Id. Demonstrating that the record may
       also support a contrary conclusion is not sufficient to justify rever-
       sal. Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1351.
              To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must prove that he
       either (1) has been persecuted in the past based on race, religion,
       nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
USCA11 Case: 23-11924      Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 02/14/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       23-11924                Opinion of the Court                          3

       opinion; or (2) has a well-founded fear that he will be persecuted in
       the future on such grounds. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228,
       1231 (11th Cir. 2006). Credible testimony can, by itself, prove eli-
       gibility. Id. However, an adverse credibility finding may form the
       basis for a denial of relief. Id. An IJ may consider the testimony’s
       consistency with record evidence when deciding if it is credible.
       Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii),
       8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). An alien who cannot establish asylum
       eligibility on the merits also cannot establish eligibility for with-
       holding of removal or CAT relief. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1288 n.4.
              Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision up-
       holding the IJ’s finding that Singh’s testimony was not credible. See
       Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286-87. Singh’s testimony that he was attacked
       on May 8, 2017, is inconsistent with record evidence showing that
       he was treated for his injuries on May 5, 2017. His testimony that
       he received stitches on his head is inconsistent with medical records
       that do not mention a head injury. Finally, his testimony that his
       parents were attacked after he left India is inconsistent with the
       medical records stating that his parents were treated for injuries
       from that attack in May 2017, almost a year before Singh left India.
       These are specific and cogent reasons justifying the IJ’s finding that
       Singh’s testimony was not credible. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287;
       INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Even if the rec-
       ord would also support Singh’s theory that the inconsistencies are
       because of errors in the supporting documents, rather than in his
       testimony, he cannot show that the IJ’s decision to discredit his tes-
       timony based on these inconsistencies was so lacking in support as
USCA11 Case: 23-11924    Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 02/14/2024   Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court               23-11924

       to compel reversal. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286-87; Kazemzadeh,
       577 F.3d at 1351. The BIA did not err in affirming the denial as a
       result. See Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231.
             PETITION DENIED