Case: 19-60640 Document: 00515458546 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60640 June 19, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk RAMANPREET SINGH SANDHU, Petitioner, versus WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 215 552 759 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ramanpreet Sandhu seeks review of the dismissal by the Board of *Pursuant to 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5.4.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: 19-60640 Document: 00515458546 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2020 No. 19-60640 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his appeal from the denial by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of his application for asylum. Because he did not brief the BIA’s dismissal of his claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, those issues are waived. See Monteon-Camargo v. Barr, 918 F.3d 423, 428 (5th Cir. 2019). We review the decision of the BIA and will consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for sub- stantial evidence. Id. Under the substantial evidence standard, “[t]he alien must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009). To qualify for asylum, an alien must prove that he either has suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution in his native coun- try. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). Sandhu’s contention that he has established past persecution need not be addressed because the BIA assumed that. See I.N.S. v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). He also contends that the BIA erred when it purported to affirm the IJ’s finding that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) had rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution by establishing that Sandhu could have reasonably and safely relocated within India, when the IJ made no such finding. Because Sandhu could have, but did not, raise this issue in a motion to reopen or for reconsideration before the BIA, we do not have jurisdiction to review it. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319-20 (5th Cir. 2009). Sandhu contends that the IJ and BIA erred by disregarding his testi- mony that he felt unsafe in Delhi when concluding that the DHS had rebutted the presumption of future persecution by demonstrating that Sandhu could 2 Case: 19-60640 Document: 00515458546 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/19/2020 No. 19-60640 have safely and reasonably relocated to a different part of India. Although “an alien cannot be forced to live in hiding to avoid persecution,” Singh v. Sessions, 898 F.3d 518, 522 (5th Cir. 2018), ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals