Case: 19-60664 Document: 00515772631 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 9, 2021
No. 19-60664
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Pritpal Singh,
Petitioner,
versus
Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A200 240 824
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Pritpal 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). He challenges the BIA’s
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60664 Document: 00515772631 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2021
No. 19-60664
decision that he lacked credibility and its failure to address whether he was
entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT. To
the extent that he claims that the immigration judge relied too heavily on the
credible fear report in determining that he lacked credibility, this claim is
unexhausted and therefore we lack jurisdiction to address it. See Wang
v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001).
We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s
decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d
220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings, including an adverse credibility
determination, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Avelar-Oliva v. Barr,
954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020).
Despite Singh’s assertions to the contrary, the immigration judge’s
determination was supported by specific reasons based on the evidence
presented and was, under the totality of the circumstances, substantially
reasonable. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
Because the adverse credibility determination was supported by “specific
and cogent reasons,” the record does not compel a finding that Singh was
credible or that no reasonable factfinder could have made an adverse
credibility finding. See id.; Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir.
2018). Accordingly, the lack of credible evidence precluded Singh from
meeting his burden of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the CAT. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir.
2012).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED in part
and DISMISSED in part.
2