Case: 19-60608 Document: 00515737191 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60608 February 8, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jaswinder Singh, Petitioner, versus Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 586 489 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jaswinder Singh petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed an appeal from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh contends that the BIA erred * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60608 Document: 00515737191 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2021 No. 19-60608 in upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, denying withholding of removal, and denying relief under the CAT. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review. Credibility determinations are factual findings that are reviewed for substantial evidence. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-40. Thus, they must (1) be based on the evidence presented and (2) be substantially reasonable. Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Under the substantial evidence standard, this court may not reverse an immigration court’s factual findings unless the evidence “compels” such a reversal—i.e., the evidence must be “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id. at 536-37; see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The IJ and the BIA “may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 538-39 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Singh argues that the record evidences a consistent basis for relief throughout, thus demonstrating his credibility. Construing Singh’s pro se brief liberally, see Morrow v. FBI, 2 F.3d 642, 643 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993), he has raised sufficient arguments for review of the adverse credibility determination. The Government’s argument that Singh waived review of the adverse credibility determination lacks merit. The IJ based his determination on Singh’s testimony at the merits hearing, Singh’s prior statements, and the evidence Singh submitted in support of his application. Several specific inconsistencies between Singh’s prior statements, testimony at the hearing, and evidence presented were identified. These specific and cogent reasons derived from the record support the IJ’s conclusions. The IJ’s credibility determination is based on the evidence presented and is substantially reasonable. In view of the 2 Case: 19-60608 Document: 00515737191 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2021 No. 19-60608 foregoing, Singh fails to show that the agency’s adverse credibility determination is erroneous. Without credible evidence, the IJ had no basis upon which to grant withholding of removal. See Chun ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals