USCA11 Case: 21-11308 Date Filed: 03/17/2022 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11308 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ KAMALJIT SINGH, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-191-657 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11308 Date Filed: 03/17/2022 Page: 2 of 7 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11308 Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Kamaljit Singh (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Ap- peals (“BIA”) affirming the August 2019 decision of the Immigra- tion Judge (“IJ”). In its August 2019 decision, the IJ denied Peti- tioner’s motion to reconsider the IJ’s September 2018 decision denying Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of re- moval, and relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). No reversible error has been shown; we dismiss the petition in part and deny the petition in part. In 2015, Petitioner entered the United States without a valid entry document and was later charged as being subject to removal. Petitioner conceded removability. Petitioner then applied for asy- lum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. In his application, Petitioner asserted that he had been subject to past persecution on USCA11 Case: 21-11308 Date Filed: 03/17/2022 Page: 3 of 7 21-11308 Opinion of the Court 3 account of his religion, political opinion, and his membership in a particular social group. In September 2018, an IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for relief and ordered Petitioner removed to India. The IJ first found Petitioner not credible. In the alternative -- assuming arguendo that Petitioner was credible -- the IJ also denied Petitioner’s claims on the merits. Among other things, the IJ determined that the mis- treatment Petitioner purportedly suffered in the past did not rise to the level of persecution. The IJ also found that Petitioner could avoid harm by relocating within India and, thus, could show no well-founded fear of future persecution. Petitioner did not appeal the IJ’s September 2018 decision to the BIA. On 28 January 2019, Petitioner -- through his lawyer -- moved for reconsideration of the IJ’s September 2018 decision. Pe- titioner first disputed the IJ’s adverse-credibility finding, asserting that the inconsistencies between his in-court testimony and his asy- lum interview could be attributed to apprehension and distrust of asylum officials. Petitioner also challenged the IJ’s determinations that Petitioner suffered no past persecution and that Petitioner could relocate reasonably within India. In making these arguments USCA11 Case: 21-11308 Date Filed: 03/17/2022 Page: 4 of 7 4 Opinion of the Court 21-11308 (arguments that consisted of a single paragraph), Petitioner cited no legal authority and made only conclusory assertions that the harm Petitioner suffered constituted past persecution. About evi- dence for no safety anywhere in India, Petitioner “himself stated that his persecutors would find him if he moved to another part of India.” On …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals