Court Opinion

ID: 9368275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 17:00:38.153963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:06.635779
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 21-9589    Document: 010110807953         Date Filed: 02/03/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          February 3, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                           Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                               Clerk of Court
  MANINDER PAL SINGH,

        Petitioner,

  v.                                                           No. 21-9589
                                                           (Petition for Review)
  MERRICK GARLAND,
  United States Attorney General,

        Respondent.
                          _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Maninder Pal Singh petitions for review of the final order of removal entered

 by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA upheld the denial by the

 immigration judge (IJ) of Mr. Singh’s applications for asylum, withholding of

 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). It addressed some

 of the IJ’s rulings on the merits and found Mr. Singh had waived certain other issues

 by failing to adequately raise them in his brief to the BIA. In his brief in this court

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
 except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
 may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 21-9589     Document: 010110807953        Date Filed: 02/03/2023     Page: 2

 Mr. Singh raises a single challenge to the BIA’s decision—that “[t]he BIA erred

 when it affirmed the IJ’s denial of [his] asylum application on the grounds of [a]

 negative credibility determination . . . .” Pet’r’s Br. at 11. Our jurisdiction arises

 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We deny the petition for review because Mr. Singh

 (1) waived any challenge to the IJ’s decision that a discretionary grant of asylum was

 not warranted in his case, which is an independently dispositive basis for the denial

 of asylum; and (2) waived any challenges to the BIA’s disposition of his claims for

 withholding of removal and CAT relief by not raising any argument about the BIA’s

 resolution of those claims in his opening brief.

       I. Background

       Mr. Singh is a native and citizen of India. He was charged with unlawfully

 entering the United States without being admitted or paroled, and he ultimately

 conceded the charge. He then applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and

 protection under the CAT. The IJ held a hearing on his application. Mr. Singh

 testified he was a member of the Shiromni Akali Dal Amritsar party, and that he was

 attacked and beaten by members of the Shiromni Akali Dal Badal and Bharitya Janta

 parties on two separate occasions in 2015 and in 2016. After the second attack he

 went to stay with an aunt in another part of the country, where he stayed for about a

 month. He testified that his parents decided to send him to the United States after the

 men who attacked him told his family they would find him and kill him. He asserted

 that Badal party members targeted him because of his political opinions and that he

 was unable to relocate within India.

                                             2
Appellate Case: 21-9589    Document: 010110807953       Date Filed: 02/03/2023      Page: 3

        After the hearing the IJ issued a written decision. He gave four reasons for

 denying Mr. Singh’s asylum claim. First, the IJ found that Mr. Singh was not

 credible because he “omitted key information about his attacks during his asylum

 interview and because his claims [were] not consistent with current country

 conditions.” R. at 42. Second, the IJ explained that even if he had found Mr. Singh

 credible, he would deny asylum relief because an exercise of discretion to grant

 asylum to Mr. Singh was not warranted. Third, Mr. Singh had not timely filed for

 asylum relief within the one-year deadline. Finally, even if Mr. Singh was credible

 and had filed his application in a timely manner, he had the burden to demonstrate he

 would be unable to relocate within India and he had failed to do so.

        Because Mr. Singh had failed to establish a well-founded fear of past or future

 persecution on account of a protected ground in his asylum case, the IJ found he

 could not establish his eligibility for withholding of removal, which requires a

 showing that it is more likely than not he would be persecuted if he returned to India.

 Likewise, the IJ found Mr. Singh had not met his burden of proving his entitlement to

 relief under the CAT because he had not shown it was “more likely than not that he

 will be tortured by or at the acquiescence of the government of India.” Id. at 47. The

 IJ denied all relief.

        Mr. Singh appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. The BIA concluded that the

 IJ had properly determined that Mr. Singh was not statutorily eligible for asylum. In

 reaching this conclusion the BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Mr. Singh was not

 credible. The BIA assumed Mr. Singh’s claim was generally plausible based on

                                            3
Appellate Case: 21-9589     Document: 010110807953        Date Filed: 02/03/2023        Page: 4

 evidence of country conditions in India, so it did not rely on that part of the IJ’s

 credibility analysis. But it determined that “[t]he inconsistency between the credible

 fear interview and subsequent statements supports an adverse credibility

 determination under the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 5. The BIA explained

 that because Mr. Singh had not testified credibly, he could not establish he had been

 subjected to past persecution.

       Regarding whether Mr. Singh had a well-founded fear of future persecution,

 the BIA noted that the IJ had made findings about Mr. Singh’s ability to relocate and

 the reasonableness of doing so, but Mr. Singh had not challenged those findings. The

 BIA therefore ruled that Mr. Singh had waived that argument.

       In addition, the BIA upheld the IJ’s discretionary denial of asylum. It noted

 that Mr. Singh had “not meaningfully addressed the [IJ’s] discretionary denial” and

 that this waiver “preclude[d] [him] from being eligible for asylum.” Id. at 6 n.3.1

       The BIA also concluded Mr. Singh was not eligible for withholding of

 removal, which requires a higher burden of proof than asylum but has no

 discretionary element. Finally, the BIA ruled that Mr. Singh had waived any

 arguments regarding his CAT claim because he did not explain how the IJ erred in

 denying it but instead discussed evidence of torture in Sudan even though he is

 Indian and has no apparent ties to Sudan.

       1
        The BIA declined to address the timeliness of Mr. Singh’s asylum application
 because it concluded he was not eligible for asylum for other reasons.
                                             4
Appellate Case: 21-9589     Document: 010110807953         Date Filed: 02/03/2023     Page: 5

        The BIA dismissed the appeal. Mr. Singh then filed the underlying petition for

 review.

        II. Discussion

        We first address Mr. Singh’s claims for withholding of removal and protection

 under the CAT. In his brief in this court Mr. Singh offers no challenge to the BIA’s

 decisions to uphold the IJ’s denials of his claim for withholding of removal and his

 claim for relief under the CAT—he does not mention those claims at all in his

 argument section. Consequently, he has waived those issues. See Krastev v. INS,

 292 F.3d 1268, 1280 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Issues not raised on appeal are deemed to be

 waived.”).

        Next, we turn to Mr. Singh’s asylum claim, which involves a “two-step

 process,” Diallo v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1274, 1282 n.4 (10th Cir. 2006). “First, the

 applicant must show that he is eligible for asylum by establishing that he is a refugee

 as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Then, having established his eligibility, he

 must convince the Attorney General to exercise his discretion and grant asylum.” Id.

 (citation omitted). Mr. Singh challenges only the IJ’s adverse-credibility

 determination, which relates to his ability to establish his statutory eligibility for

 asylum at the first step. He does not mention that the IJ determined a discretionary

 grant of relief was not warranted in his case, which meant his request for asylum also

 failed at the second step. And Mr. Singh likewise fails to address the BIA’s

 conclusion that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s discretionary denial of asylum

 because he failed to raise it in his brief to the BIA. The BIA ruled that Mr. Singh

                                              5
Appellate Case: 21-9589    Document: 010110807953         Date Filed: 02/03/2023     Page: 6

 was ineligible for asylum relief on that basis, which provides an independent ground

 to deny asylum relief. Mr. Singh’s failure to address the discretionary denial of

 asylum in his appellate brief constitutes a waiver. See Krastev, 292 F.3d at 1280.

 Because of this waiver, he cannot succeed on his asylum claim regardless of whether

 the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s adverse-credibility determination. See Murrell v.

 Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1390 (10th Cir. 1994) (failure to challenge an agency finding

 that is an independently sufficient basis for the denial of relief forecloses success on

 appeal regardless of the merits of an alternative ground).

       III. Conclusion

       We deny the petition for review.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Harris L Hartz
                                             Circuit Judge

                                             6