Gurpreet Singh v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-1563 ___________ GURPREET SINGH, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF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. A208-676-674) Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter A. Durling ____________________________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on November 14, 2017 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 15, 2017) ___________ OPINION* ___________ KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 Judge’s (IJ) order of removal and denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the BIA’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, we will deny the petition for review. I. Background Around three years ago, Singh, a Sikh living in Punjab, India, joined the Mann Party, a minority political party in that region. He quickly became a visible supporter of the party, attending meetings and rallies and putting up posters around his community. Singh alleges that, as a result, he became a target of the rival Badal Party, Punjab’s majority party, whose members not only threatened him but violently attacked him two times, the second of which led to a 10-day stay in the hospital. To help him avoid the threats and violence, Singh’s father sent him to stay with a family friend in Delhi, some 300 miles from Punjab, but, after the threats continued, Singh left Delhi and eventually made his way to the United States to seek asylum. The Department of Homeland Security instituted removal proceedings against Singh, after which he formally applied for asylum as well as withholding of removal and CAT protection. After a hearing at which Singh testified, the IJ denied all three of his requests for relief and ordered him removed, concluding that he was not credible and that his corroborating evidence was insufficient. The BIA upheld the IJ’s decision and dismissed Singh’s appeal. does not constitute binding precedent. 2 II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review The BIA had jurisdiction over Singh’s appeal from the IJ’s removal order under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3), and we have jurisdiction over his petition for review of the BIA’s final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Where the BIA issues its own opinion and relies on reasoning from the IJ’s opinion, we review both decisions. Sandie v. Att’y Gen., 562 F.3d 246, 250 (3d Cir. 2009). We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its adoption of the IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Alimbaev v. Att’y Gen., 872 F.3d 188, 194, 196 (3d Cir. 2017). Where, as here, the BIA also has adopted the IJ’s credibility determination, we give that determination “exceptional deference.” Id. at 196. III. Discussion In his petition for review, Singh ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals