Case: 20-60368 Document: 00515952065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 26, 2021
No. 20-60368
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Sukhmaan Singh, also known as Sukhmaan Thappa,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 191 787
Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Sukhmaan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order
of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying: his applications for asylum;
withholding of removal; and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60368 Document: 00515952065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2021
No. 20-60368
(CAT). Singh contends the BIA: erred in affirming the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination; failed to address documentary evidence
corroborating his statements; and ignored the effects of his post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) on his testimony. His claims fail.
For the BIA’s decision, and that of the IJ insofar as it influenced the
BIA, Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009), legal conclusions are
reviewed de novo; factual findings, for substantial evidence. E.g., Iruegas-
Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806, 810 (5th Cir. 2017). Under the substantial-
evidence standard, petitioner has the burden of showing “the evidence [is]
so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it”.
Wang, 569 F.3d at 537.
An adverse credibility determination is a factual finding. Singh v.
Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018). In that regard, “if the IJ’s
credibility determinations are supported by the record, they will be
affirmed”. Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. In making an adverse credibility
determination, the IJ and the BIA “may rely on any inconsistency or omission
. . . as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum
applicant is not credible”. Id. at 538 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted) (emphasis in original).
The record does not compel the conclusion Singh was credible. The
IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility determinations were based on
discrepancies among Singh’s testimony and supporting statements, which
include, inter alia: whether Singh was a member or worker for the Mann
party; whether he was alone when attacked; whether his mother witnessed
the attack; and whether he suffered further harm. Singh’s offering an
alternative explanation for some of these inconsistencies is insufficient. See
Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 2018) (“The possibility of
drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an
2
Case: 20-60368 Document: 00515952065 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/26/2021
No. 20-60368
administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial
evidence.” (citation omitted)).
Singh maintains the IJ and BIA failed to consider documentary
evidence (hospital records); but, he did not present this claim before the BIA.
We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider the issue. See Wang v. Ashcroft,
260 F.3d 448, 452–53 (5th Cir. 2001).
Finally, his contention that the IJ and BIA ignored the potential effects
of PTSD on his testimony is belied by the record. The BIA expressly
concluded his PTSD diagnosis did not undermine the adverse credibility
determination, noting Singh’s testimony was coherent and, in any event, he
did not explain which inconsistencies were caused by that condition. Singh
v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225–26 (5th Cir. 2018) (upholding adverse-
credibility determination because, inter alia, “there was no indication that
[petitioner’s] PTSD affected his testimony or ability to speak in a coherent
and linear manner”).
In the light of the adverse credibility determination, Singh has not
shown the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s denial of his requested relief,
including under CAT, assuming he properly presented that claim in his brief
in this court. See, e.g., Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658 (5th Cir. 2012)
(“[B]ecause the same lack of evidence [from petitioner’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims] means that [petitioner] cannot show he will
be tortured, he is not entitled to relief under the CAT”).
DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3