NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 18-1065 _____________ BHIM SINGH, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A200-902-813) Immigration Judge: Honorable Alberto Riefkohl ____________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 27, 2018 ____________________ Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES, and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: October 22, 2018) ______________ OPINION* ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge. Petitioner Bhim Singh seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on December 20, 2017, denying his motion to reopen. For the reasons discussed below, we will deny his petition for review. I. FACTS Singh, a native and citizen of India, attempted to enter the United States on August 29, 2010, but was not admitted because he was unable to produce a valid entry document. He told a border patrol officer that he feared returning to India because he owed money to individuals who had helped finance his trip to the United States and that he sought to enter the United States for employment purposes. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) thereafter determined that Singh was subject to expedited removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii). An asylum officer subsequently conducted a credible fear interview with Singh, where Singh contended that Charanjit Singh Channi, a politician in India, threatened to kill him due to his unpaid debt used to start a business. Singh also contended that Channi offered to forgive a portion of the debt should Singh agree to convert from the Sikh faith to Hinduism. Based on the interview, the asylum officer concluded that Singh established a credible fear of torture but not a credible fear of persecution. DHS subsequently charged Singh with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as an alien not in possession of a valid entry document. Although Singh 2 conceded before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that he was removable, he filed for—and subsequently updated—an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In support of his application, he testified before the IJ that he was harmed by Channi, that Channi indicated that he would forgive a portion of the debt should Singh join Channi’s political party, and that Channi’s people assaulted Singh when the latter refused to do so. The IJ denied each of Singh’s stated forms of relief on March 31, 2016. The IJ concluded that Singh lacked credibility in light of “multiple inconsistences between [his] testimony, his written statement, and the documentary evidence in the record.” A.R. 292. In particular, the IJ drew an adverse credibility determination because Singh’s testimony detailed an asylum claim predicated on his political opinion—i.e., Singh’s testimony that Channi attempted to coerce him to join Channi’s political party—but that his prior statements and evidence presented a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals