Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-12474 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A200-715-833 IQBAL SINGH, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (July 1, 2019) Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 2 of 7 The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Iqbal Singh’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Singh, a native and citizen of India, now petitions for review of that order, arguing that the BIA improperly weighed his evidence about the changed country conditions in India since his 2011 removal hearing. We disagree and deny Singh’s petition for review. I. Background In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took Singh into custody, issued a notice to appear, and charged him with removability under the Immigration Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(6)(A)(i). Singh conceded to the charge and requested a hearing for asylum and withholding of removal based on his religion and political opinion. At the hearing, Singh alleged that, on two occasions in 2010, men from the central government—the Badal Party—“took [him] and beat [him] up” because he was a member of the Mann Party, a separatist group that advocates for Sikh initiatives. Singh then withdrew his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and the BIA ordered that he be removed. Nearly seven years later, in 2017, Singh filed his second motion to reopen 1 his removal proceedings to file applications for asylum, withholding of removal, 1 Singh filed his first motion to reopen removal proceedings in 2013, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA denied that motion after Singh failed to appear for the hearing, which we dismissed on appeal for want of prosecution. See Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 15-13850, Doc. 12 (11th Cir., Nov. 17, 2015). 2 Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 3 of 7 and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh claimed that the conditions in India for Mann Party members had worsened since his 2011 hearing. Singh argued that after another anti-Mann Party group—the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—won the 2014 and 2017 elections, violence against Mann Party members increased. He presented the following evidence: his own affidavit detailing his Mann Party membership, political activities, and the 2010 attacks; declarations from his mother and sister detailing their own attacks by Badal Party members in 2017; declarations from various authorities in his home district corroborating the attacks on Singh and his family members; hospital records corroborating injuries from those attacks; and the 2011 and 2016 State Department Country Reports for India. The BIA did not find the various statements from India about the attacks on Singh’s mother and sister convincing, reasoning that the statements were prepared for litigation by interested witnesses that were not subject to cross-examination. After reviewing this evidence, the BIA denied Singh’s motion, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals