SINGH v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-06-03No. No. 20-60330

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied because Singh did not challenge the finding that he failed to submit reasonably available corroborative evidence, thereby abandoning that argument, and he failed to demonstrate that corroborative evidence was unavailable.

Sukhchain Singh, an Indian citizen, sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to dismiss his appeal challenging the denial of his asylum application and related relief claims. Singh contended that the immigration judge improperly made an adverse credibility finding without allowing him to address inconsistencies in his testimony. Upon review, the court found that the immigration judge did not actually base the decision on credibility issues but rather concluded that Singh failed to provide adequate supporting documentation to substantiate his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an adverse credibility determination was properly made without opportunity to explain alleged inconsistencies
Whether sufficient corroborative evidence was submitted to support asylum and related claims
Whether corroborative evidence was reasonably available to the applicant

Procedural posture

Singh petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection applications.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Sukhchain Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh argues that the immigration judges adverse credibility determination was made in error because he was not given an opportunity to explain any alleged inconsistencies and because it was not sufficiently related to his persecution claims. However, the immigration judge did not make an adverse credibility determination, and instead determined that Singh did not submit sufficient corroborative evidence to establish his entitlement to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT. Because he does not challenge the determination that he failed to provide reasonably available corroborative evidence, he has abandoned any challenge to that determination. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Moreover, Singh has failed to identify any corroborative evidence he could have obtained, and there is nothing in the record compelling the conclusion that corroborative evidence is unavailable. See Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 587 (5th Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* 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.