Court Opinion

ID: 9382401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 17:00:44.985591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:39.186765
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-12007   Document: 47-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2023    Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                                No. 21-12007
                         ____________________

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

                                                              Respondent.

                         ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A208-200-407
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-12007     Document: 47-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                21-12007

       Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Balwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
       review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of
       the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) (1) denial of his application for
       asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture
       (“CAT”) relief, and (2) denial of his motions for a continuance and
       change of venue. Singh was represented by counsel before the IJ
       and the BIA. Singh conceded removability.
             After a merits hearing on his application for asylum,
       withholding of removal, and CAT relief, the IJ found Singh’s
       testimony lacked credibility for multiple reasons. Alternatively,
       even assuming Singh was credible, the IJ denied the application on
       several other merits grounds. The BIA affirmed based on the IJ’s
       adverse credibility finding without reaching the other issues.
              In his petition for review, Singh contends that the BIA and IJ
       erred by denying him asylum and withholding of removal based on
       an adverse credibility finding. We review factual determinations,
       including credibility determinations, under the substantial
       evidence test. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254–55 (11th
       Cir. 2006). We must affirm if an agency’s decision “is supported by
       reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
       considered as a whole.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
              Here, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
       finding. In light of the multiple, significant inconsistencies in
USCA11 Case: 21-12007         Document: 47-1        Date Filed: 03/27/2023         Page: 3 of 3

       21-12007                   Opinion of the Court                               3

       Singh’s testimony and the record as a whole, Singh has failed to
       show that the record compels a finding that he was credible. 1
              Further, under the totality of the circumstances in this
       particular case, Singh has not shown any reversible error or abuse
       of discretion in the denials of his motions for a change of venue and
       a continuance.
              PETITION DENIED.

       1 In his initial brief, Singh makes only passing references to his CAT claim.
       Accordingly, Singh has forfeited this issue, and we will not discuss it further.
       See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009). In
       addition, given the BIA denied Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal
       claims only on credibility grounds, we need not consider Singh’s other
       arguments as to these claims.