USCA11 Case: 22-11735 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/14/2023 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-11735 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SUKHWINDER SINGH, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-182-008 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-11735 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/14/2023 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 22-11735 Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Sukhwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks re- view of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his claims for asylum and withhold- ing of removal, as well as his motion to change venue. First, Singh asserts that his asylum and withholding claims were improperly denied because the BIA wrongly concluded that he waived a challenge to the IJ’s dispositive finding of changed cir- cumstances in his home country. Specifically, he contends that the IJ and BIA used an improper standard for assessing changed circum- stances, erred in concluding that he did not suffer past persecution, failed to consider all the evidence in light of the presumption that he was credible, and ignored new evidence that he presented on appeal to the BIA. Second, Singh asserts that the BIA’s decision affirming the denial of his change-of-venue motion lacked reasoned consideration of the arguments and evidence. After careful review, we deny Singh’s petition in part and dismiss it in part. I We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). In deciding whether to uphold the BIA’s decision, we are limited to the grounds on which the BIA relied. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., USCA11 Case: 22-11735 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/14/2023 Page: 3 of 8 22-11735 Opinion of the Court 3 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016) (stating that this Court does not consider issues that the BIA did not reach); NLRB v. U.S. Postal Serv., 526 F.3d 729, 732 n.2 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating that an admin- istrative agency ruling “cannot be upheld unless the grounds upon which the agency acted . . . were those upon which its action can be sustained” (quotation omitted)). We review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Perez-Zen- teno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). “[A]gencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” I.N.S. v. Baga- masbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). We may review a final order of removal only if the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to him as a matter of right. INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). The exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional and precludes review of a claim that was not presented to the BIA. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals