NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-2090 ___________ CHATARDEEP SINGH, Petitioner v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A205-942-183) Immigration Judge: Honorable Charles M. Honeyman ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 8, 2018 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., BIBAS, and ROTH Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 26, 2018) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Chatardeep Singh petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order of removal. We will deny the petition. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. I. Singh is a citizen of India who arrived in the United States in 2013. Upon his arrival, he was charged with being removable for not possessing valid entry documents, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and was interviewed by a border patrol agent. During this “border interview,” Singh expressed his fear of returning to India. Once in removal proceedings, Singh conceded his removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In support of that application, Singh alleged that, on two occasions in 2013, he was attacked and beaten in India for supporting the country’s Mann party. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) held a hearing on the merits of the application and subsequently issued a written decision denying all relief. With respect to Singh’s asylum claim, the IJ determined that Singh’s testimony was not credible, and that Singh had not provided sufficient corroborating evidence to overcome the deficiencies in that testimony.1 Next, the IJ explained that, because Singh’s asylum claim failed, his withholding of removal claim necessarily failed, too. Lastly, the IJ denied Singh’s CAT claim, concluding that Singh had not shown that he would likely be tortured if he returned to India. Singh appealed from the IJ’s decision. The BIA dismissed that appeal in April 2017, upholding the IJ’s adverse-credibility and insufficient-corroboration findings, and 1 Although the IJ gave alternative reasons for denying Singh’s asylum claim, we need not consider those reasons here. As we explain in Section II of this opinion, Singh has not demonstrated that the IJ’s adverse-credibility determination or the IJ’s insufficient- corroboration finding should be disturbed. 2 concluding that Singh had waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim by failing to “meaningfully challenge[]” that denial on appeal. (A.R. at 3 n.1.) This timely petition for review followed. II. We have jurisdiction to review Singh’s final order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the agency’s factual findings, including its adverse-credibility and insufficient-corroboration determinations, for substantial evidence. See Chen v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 212, 216, 220 (3d Cir. 2005). Under this deferential standard of review, we must uphold those findings “unless the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals