NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 17-1940 ______________ PARMINDER SINGH, a/k/a Parminder Singh Sandhu, a/k/a Pajur, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A208-601-650) Immigration Judge: Honorable Leo A. Finston ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 11, 2017 ______________ Before: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, and ROTH, Circuit Judges. (Filed: November 15, 2017) ______________ OPINION* ______________ SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Petitioner Parminder Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) opinion denying Singh’s claims for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because Singh’s due process rights were not violated, the record does not compel a conclusion that Singh was credible or that potentially corroborating evidence was unavailable, and he failed to meaningfully challenge before the BIA the denial of his CAT claim, we will deny the petition for review in part and dismiss it in part. I Singh is a native and citizen of India who entered the United States in 2015 without a valid entry permit. The Department of Homeland Security served him with a Notice to Appear, asserting that he was inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). In January 2016, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) held a master calendar hearing. Singh appeared with counsel, who stated that he had been retained only to represent Singh in his bond and custody proceedings. Another hearing in March 2016 was postponed because Singh appeared pro se and without a Punjabi interpreter. In May 2016, Singh appeared with different counsel, conceded removability, and filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, supported by several documents including affidavits purportedly from his parents. The IJ scheduled the merits hearing for October 18, 2016. In connection with each hearing, Singh received notices that advised him that he may be represented by counsel at no expense to the Government. 2 The notices pertaining to his merits hearing also stated that a list of free legal service providers had been given to him. In September 2016, Singh’s counsel moved to withdraw, stating that Singh and his family “wish[ed] to retain another attorney.” A.R. 279. The IJ granted the motion. The day before the October 18, 2016 hearing, Singh submitted pro se additional documents in support of his application that included an amended statement (which, unlike his previous statement, was signed by him); a letter purportedly from his political party in India (the “party letter”); and a letter purportedly from his doctor in India. At the beginning of the merits hearing, the IJ told Singh that his attorney “wrote to me and said that you no longer wanted him to represent you,” to which Singh replied, “Yes, sir.” A.R. 116. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals