Case: 19-60351 Document: 00515417050 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60351 May 14, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GAGANPREET SINGH, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 937 309 Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gaganpreet Singh, a citizen and native of India, proceeding pro se, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh contends the BIA erred in accepting the IJ’s: finding Singh had not suffered past persecution; conducting a limited, incomplete, and conjectural analysis of * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Case: 19-60351 Document: 00515417050 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2020 No. 19-60351 the feasibility of Singh’s relocating within India; not shifting the burden with respect to the feasibility of internal relocation to respondent; and finding Singh is not under direct threat of persecution at the acquiescence of government officials for purposes of withholding of removal and CAT protection. In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s decision, to the extent it influenced the BIA), our court reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). The determinations an alien is ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief are each factual findings. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). On substantial-evidence review, such factual findings will not be disturbed “unless the court decides not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it”. Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Along that line, “petitioner has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Regarding Singh’s seeking asylum, aliens who qualify as refugees are eligible for it. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). “The term ‘refugee’ is statutorily defined as a person who is outside their country and unable or unwilling to return ‘because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). In that regard, persecution is “the infliction of suffering or harm, under government sanction, upon persons who differ in a way regarded as offensive[,] . . . in a manner condemned by civilized governments”. Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals