Case: 20-60273 Document: 00516010683 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 13, 2021
No. 20-60273 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Gurwinder Singh,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 424 034
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Gurwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal
of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60273 Document: 00516010683 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2021
No. 20-60273
Against Torture (CAT). He also seeks, for the first time in any forum, a
discretionary grant of humanitarian asylum pursuant to Matter of Chen, 20 I.
& N. Dec. 16, 19 (BIA 1989). We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s
unexhausted request for humanitarian asylum. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d
132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004). In all other respects, we deny the petition for review.
Singh fails to show that the BIA’s decision to deny his asylum
application was unsupported by substantial evidence and substantially
unreasonable. See Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). The
two physical beatings received at the hands of Congress Party members, the
isolated threat that he would be shot the next time his attackers saw him, and
the local police’s response when he attempted to file a police report did not
rise to the level of past persecution. See Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d
402, 407 (5th Cir. 2020); Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 596-97 (5th Cir.
2006). Nor did Singh establish a well-founded fear of future persecution if
removed to India. Despite his arguments to the contrary, Singh failed to
demonstrate that his attackers were government actors, and the burden was
on him, and not the Government, to show that relocation within India was
unreasonable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i)-(iv); Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft,
263 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2001). The BIA’s determination that Singh failed
to make this showing is supported by substantial evidence. See Sharma, 729
F.3d at 411. While Singh challenges the IJ’s finding that he failed to establish
the requisite nexus between his political opinion and his persecution, the BIA
did not explicitly affirm the IJ’s nexus finding, and, thus, this argument is not
before us. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009).
As Singh acknowledges, an applicant has a heavier burden of proof
when seeking withholding of removal than he has when seeking asylum. See
Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). Because he
failed to meet the standard for asylum, Singh cannot meet the standard for
2
Case: 20-60273 Document: 00516010683 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/13/2021
No. 20-60273
obtaining withholding of removal. See id.; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906
(5th Cir. 2002).
Finally, with respect to his application for CAT relief, Singh points to
no record evidence showing that the Indian government would acquiesce to
any torture if he returned to India. Insofar as Singh relies largely on evidence
of general country conditions to establish the likelihood of torture,
“[g]eneralized country evidence tells us little about the likelihood state actors
will torture any particular person.” Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 911 (5th
Cir. 2019). Furthermore, to the extent that Singh failed to show that the
actions of local police constituted persecution for purposes of asylum, “[i]t
follows a fortiori [that] they do not constitute torture.” Id. Thus, the record
does not compel the conclusion that Singh will, more likely than not, be
subjected to torture if removed to India. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653,
659 (5th Cir. 2012).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED in part
and DISMISSED in part.
3