Case: 19-14202 Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14202 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A216-265-738 SUKHVIR SINGH, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (July 2, 2020) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-14202 Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Page: 2 of 5 Sukhvir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of an order affirming the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). Initially, the immigration judge held an evidentiary hearing and denied Singh’s applications, but the Board of Immigration Appeals remanded for the immigration judge “to further address Singh’s credibility in light of his corroborating evidence.” On remand, the immigration judge considered the newest country report with the existing record and again denied Singh’s applications. The immigration judge found that Singh was not credible and that his remaining evidence failed to establish his eligibility for immigration relief. We deny Singh’s petition. To the extent the Board adopted the reasoning of the immigration judge, we also review his decision. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir. 2010). We apply “a highly deferential” test to determine whether the decision “is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283–84 (11th Cir. 2001)). Under that test, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of it. Id. We cannot disturb a factual 2 Case: 19-14202 Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Page: 3 of 5 finding unless “the record compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Id. (quoting Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc)). Substantial evidence supports the finding that Singh was not credible, and the Board and immigration judge provided specific, cogent reasons to support that finding. See id. Singh based his claim of persecution on his membership in the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party and two incidents involving the rival Bharatiya Janata Party, but his written application, testimony, and corroborating evidence contained inconsistencies about the treatment of his parents. Although affidavits from his mother, the head of his village, and a priest stated that members of the Bharatiya Party and police officers killed Singh’s father because of his involvement in the Akali Dal party, Singh never mentioned that his father’s death was politically motivated. The Board reasonably found that the inconsistency “significantly undercut [Singh’s] ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals