Singh v. Lynch, No. 15-60400 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Petitioner, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the BIA's decision denying his motion to reopen. Petitioner, charged with entering the United States without inspection, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on his membership in a rival political party in India, the Akali Dal (Badal) party. The court concluded that the BIA's findings are supported by the record. In this case, the State Department’s 2012 Country Report for India did not describe a change in country conditions that are materially different than when petitioner was ordered removed, and the Report does not indicate whether conditions have substantially deteriorated since petitioner's order of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Download PDF
Case: 15-60400 Document: 00513726880 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-60400 Summary Calendar FILED October 20, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MANDEEP SINGH, Petitioner, versus LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Mandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen. Singh was charged with entering the United States without inspection in 2011. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Case: 15-60400 Document: 00513726880 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2016 No. 15-60400 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming he was threatened and injured by members of rival political party in India—the Akali Dal (Badal) party—for refusing to join their ranks. He alleged that his life was in “grave danger” and that he could not relocate to another state in India, so he left India and attempted entry into the United States. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied relief, and the BIA affirmed but remanded, instructing the IJ to make additional findings concerning Singh’s eligibility for protection under the CAT. On remand, the IJ made further findings, denied relief under the CAT, and ordered Singh removed to India. Singh did not appeal the IJ’s order. More than nine months later, Singh filed an untimely motion to reopen, asserting that the Indian police had threatened him and wrongly accused him of receiving terrorist training in Pakistan. In support of his claims, he submitted affidavits from his mother and the Sarpanch of his Indian village, and the State Department’s 2012 Country Report for India. He averred that the Country Report verified his new fear of returning to India, because it established that human rights violations regularly occur in India, and the Indian police and security forces commit serious abuses. Singh claimed entitlement to relief based on changed circumstances. The IJ denied the motion to reopen, and the BIA dismissed the appeal. We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303–04 (5th Cir. 2005). Under that standard, the BIA’s ruling will stand, even if this court concludes it is erroneous, “so long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id. at 304 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2 Case: 15-60400 Document: 00513726880 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/20/2016 No. 15-60400 The BIA found, inter alia, that “the State Department’s 2012 Country Reports for India did not describe a change in country conditions that are materially different than [sic] the conditions in place at the time [Singh] was ordered removed.” The BIA further found that, although the Report describes “ongoing violence by both insurgents and security forces,” it “does not indicate whether conditions have substantially deteriorated since [Singh’s] order of removal.” Those conclusions find support in the record. A motion to reopen can be denied where the evidence of changed conditions shows only a continuance of ongoing violence in the home country. 1 Moreover, Singh’s assertion that he fears for his safety upon returning to India, given the new threats and violence experienced by his mother and the Indian police’s targeting of him, amounts to a change in personal circumstances and does not constitute changed country conditions. 2 The petition for review is DENIED. See, e.g., Ramos v. Lynch, 622 F. App’x 432, 433 (5th Cir. 2015); Das v. Holder, 490 F. App’x 672, 673 (5th Cir. 2012); Thomas v. Holder, 396 F. App’x 60, 61 (5th Cir. 2010); Himani v. Mukasey, 305 F. App’x 229, 231 (5th Cir. 2008). 1 See Gatamba v. Holder, 485 F. App’x 690, 691 (5th Cir. 2012); Yang Xin Chun v. Holder, 335 F. App’x 454, 455 (5th Cir. 2009); Keivani v. Gonzales, 214 F. App’x 469, 470 (5th Cir. 2007); Zhao, 404 F.3d at 407. 2 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
