Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 18-12474 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
Agency No. A200-715-833
IQBAL SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________
(July 1, 2019)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 2 of 7
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Iqbal Singh’s motion to
reopen his removal proceedings. Singh, a native and citizen of India, now petitions
for review of that order, arguing that the BIA improperly weighed his evidence
about the changed country conditions in India since his 2011 removal hearing. We
disagree and deny Singh’s petition for review.
I. Background
In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took Singh into
custody, issued a notice to appear, and charged him with removability under the
Immigration Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(6)(A)(i). Singh conceded to the
charge and requested a hearing for asylum and withholding of removal based on
his religion and political opinion. At the hearing, Singh alleged that, on two
occasions in 2010, men from the central government—the Badal Party—“took
[him] and beat [him] up” because he was a member of the Mann Party, a separatist
group that advocates for Sikh initiatives. Singh then withdrew his application for
asylum and withholding of removal, and the BIA ordered that he be removed.
Nearly seven years later, in 2017, Singh filed his second motion to reopen 1
his removal proceedings to file applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
1 Singh filed his first motion to reopen removal proceedings in 2013, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA denied that motion after Singh failed to appear for the hearing, which we dismissed on appeal for want of prosecution. See Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 15-13850, Doc. 12 (11th Cir., Nov. 17, 2015). 2 Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 3 of 7
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh claimed that
the conditions in India for Mann Party members had worsened since his 2011
hearing. Singh argued that after another anti-Mann Party group—the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP)—won the 2014 and 2017 elections, violence against Mann
Party members increased. He presented the following evidence: his own affidavit
detailing his Mann Party membership, political activities, and the 2010 attacks;
declarations from his mother and sister detailing their own attacks by Badal Party
members in 2017; declarations from various authorities in his home district
corroborating the attacks on Singh and his family members; hospital records
corroborating injuries from those attacks; and the 2011 and 2016 State Department
Country Reports for India.
The BIA did not find the various statements from India about the attacks on
Singh’s mother and sister convincing, reasoning that the statements were prepared
for litigation by interested witnesses that were not subject to cross-examination.
After reviewing this evidence, the BIA denied Singh’s motion, concluding that
there were no material changes in India’s country conditions to warrant reopening
Singh’s removal proceedings.
II. Discussion
We review the denial of a motion to reopen an immigration proceeding for
an abuse of discretion. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1301–02 (11th Cir.
3 Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 4 of 7
2001). This review is limited to determining whether the BIA exercised its
discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d
1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009). Because motions to reopen are disfavored, the
moving party bears a heavy burden. Id. The BIA is not required to discuss every
piece of evidence presented. Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th
Cir. 2006). When the BIA exercises administrative discretion, the findings are
sufficient if the BIA’s written decision sets out the ground for denial so that a
reviewing court is able to determine if the agency considered the evidence and did
not merely react. Id.; Blackwood v. I.N.S., 803 F.2d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 1986).
We will reverse a factual finding by the BIA “only when the record compels a
reversal; the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not
enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft,
386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004).
The BIA may, at a minimum, deny a motion to reopen for: (1) failure to
establish a prima facie case for the relief sought; (2) failure to introduce previously
unavailable, material evidence; or (3) a determination that even if these
requirements were satisfied, the movant would not be entitled to the discretionary
grant of relief that he sought. I.N.S. v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992); Al
Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1302. Under the INA, a petitioner is generally limited to one
motion to reopen, which must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative
4 Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 5 of 7
decision. INA §§ 240(c)(7)(A), (C)(i), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). But
those limits do not apply to applications “for asylum or withholding of deportation
based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the
country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and
was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous
hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Changed circumstances are those that materially affect an
applicant’s eligibility for asylum, including changes within the applicant’s country
of nationality. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(i)(A). A petitioner cannot, however,
“circumvent the requirement of changed country conditions by demonstrating only
a change in her personal circumstances.” Zhang, 572 F.3d at 1319.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because he failed to establish a material change in country conditions in India with
respect to his Sikh religion and Mann Party membership. INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(ii), 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). The evidence indicates that the current violence faced
by the members of the Mann Party and Sikh religion have been a continuation of
the same or similar conditions that existed at the time of Singh’s 2011 hearing.2
First, Singh’s evidence of violence in the wake of the 2014 and 2017 elections is
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 18-12474 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
Agency No. A200-715-833
IQBAL SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________
(July 1, 2019)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 2 of 7
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Iqbal Singh’s motion to
reopen his removal proceedings. Singh, a native and citizen of India, now petitions
for review of that order, arguing that the BIA improperly weighed his evidence
about the changed country conditions in India since his 2011 removal hearing. We
disagree and deny Singh’s petition for review.
I. Background
In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took Singh into
custody, issued a notice to appear, and charged him with removability under the
Immigration Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(6)(A)(i). Singh conceded to the
charge and requested a hearing for asylum and withholding of removal based on
his religion and political opinion. At the hearing, Singh alleged that, on two
occasions in 2010, men from the central government—the Badal Party—“took
[him] and beat [him] up” because he was a member of the Mann Party, a separatist
group that advocates for Sikh initiatives. Singh then withdrew his application for
asylum and withholding of removal, and the BIA ordered that he be removed.
Nearly seven years later, in 2017, Singh filed his second motion to reopen 1
his removal proceedings to file applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
1 Singh filed his first motion to reopen removal proceedings in 2013, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA denied that motion after Singh failed to appear for the hearing, which we dismissed on appeal for want of prosecution. See Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 15-13850, Doc. 12 (11th Cir., Nov. 17, 2015). 2 Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 3 of 7
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh claimed that
the conditions in India for Mann Party members had worsened since his 2011
hearing. Singh argued that after another anti-Mann Party group—the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP)—won the 2014 and 2017 elections, violence against Mann
Party members increased. He presented the following evidence: his own affidavit
detailing his Mann Party membership, political activities, and the 2010 attacks;
declarations from his mother and sister detailing their own attacks by Badal Party
members in 2017; declarations from various authorities in his home district
corroborating the attacks on Singh and his family members; hospital records
corroborating injuries from those attacks; and the 2011 and 2016 State Department
Country Reports for India.
The BIA did not find the various statements from India about the attacks on
Singh’s mother and sister convincing, reasoning that the statements were prepared
for litigation by interested witnesses that were not subject to cross-examination.
After reviewing this evidence, the BIA denied Singh’s motion, concluding that
there were no material changes in India’s country conditions to warrant reopening
Singh’s removal proceedings.
II. Discussion
We review the denial of a motion to reopen an immigration proceeding for
an abuse of discretion. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1301–02 (11th Cir.
3 Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 4 of 7
2001). This review is limited to determining whether the BIA exercised its
discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d
1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009). Because motions to reopen are disfavored, the
moving party bears a heavy burden. Id. The BIA is not required to discuss every
piece of evidence presented. Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th
Cir. 2006). When the BIA exercises administrative discretion, the findings are
sufficient if the BIA’s written decision sets out the ground for denial so that a
reviewing court is able to determine if the agency considered the evidence and did
not merely react. Id.; Blackwood v. I.N.S., 803 F.2d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 1986).
We will reverse a factual finding by the BIA “only when the record compels a
reversal; the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not
enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft,
386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004).
The BIA may, at a minimum, deny a motion to reopen for: (1) failure to
establish a prima facie case for the relief sought; (2) failure to introduce previously
unavailable, material evidence; or (3) a determination that even if these
requirements were satisfied, the movant would not be entitled to the discretionary
grant of relief that he sought. I.N.S. v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992); Al
Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1302. Under the INA, a petitioner is generally limited to one
motion to reopen, which must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative
4 Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 5 of 7
decision. INA §§ 240(c)(7)(A), (C)(i), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). But
those limits do not apply to applications “for asylum or withholding of deportation
based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the
country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and
was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous
hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Changed circumstances are those that materially affect an
applicant’s eligibility for asylum, including changes within the applicant’s country
of nationality. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(i)(A). A petitioner cannot, however,
“circumvent the requirement of changed country conditions by demonstrating only
a change in her personal circumstances.” Zhang, 572 F.3d at 1319.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because he failed to establish a material change in country conditions in India with
respect to his Sikh religion and Mann Party membership. INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(ii), 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). The evidence indicates that the current violence faced
by the members of the Mann Party and Sikh religion have been a continuation of
the same or similar conditions that existed at the time of Singh’s 2011 hearing.2
First, Singh’s evidence of violence in the wake of the 2014 and 2017 elections is
2 The 2011 hearing is the relevant time period for assessing changed country conditions because it is the “previous hearing” in the proceedings Singh seeks to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 5 Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 6 of 7
not materially different from his evidence of the violence at the time of the
removal hearing. At the time of his removal hearing in 2011, Singh was subject to
violence for his beliefs, including the 2010 attacks. He also stated that, at the time,
police were shooting people he knew because they were targeting known
separatists. The attacks on his family in 2017 were not a change, but rather a
continuation of those threats. Second, his motion to reopen also includes reports
that in 2011, there was widespread impunity at all levels of government, police and
security force abuses, and corruption in the government. Third, while Singh relies
on the 2014 and 2017 elections to show an increase in violence by these parties,
these political groups had significant power in 2010. And while current country
conditions show ongoing and sometimes violent treatment of Sikhs, the evidence
also shows this was a significant problem in 2011. Singh thus fails to show how
the threat he faces from the government’s interest in him has materially changed
since he was attacked in 2010.
Singh argues that the BIA should have given greater weight to his evidence.
Although the affidavits provided by his mother, sister, village leader, and
neighbors corroborated one another and were supported by hospital records, it was
not unreasonable for the BIA to give significant weight to the fact that they
appeared to be prepared for litigation by interested parties that were not subject to
cross-examination. Singh’s preferred conclusion is not the only reasonable
6 Case: 18-12474 Date Filed: 07/01/2019 Page: 7 of 7
conclusion, and the record thus does not compel reversal of the BIA’s factual
determinations. See Adefemi, 386 F.3d at 1027.
The record also shows that the BIA sufficiently considered the evidence
before it and adequately justified its decision. The BIA decision considered
Singh’s evidence about his two 2010 attacks; the Congress and Badal Party
members’ continued search for Singh; the attacks on Singh’s mother and sister;
general country conditions, including the State Department reports; his
involvement with the Sikh community; affidavits from his mother, sister, village
leader, and neighbors; and corroborating hospital records. While the BIA was not
required to discuss in detail every piece of evidence presented, the record indicates
that the BIA considered Singh’s evidence before it made its decision. See Tan, 446
F.3d at 1374; Blackwood, 803 F.2d at 1168.
III. Conclusion
Singh has failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his
motion to reopen. Accordingly, we deny Singh’s petition for review. 3
PETITION DENIED.
3 Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Singh had not met the requirements for reopening his case, we decline to consider whether Singh made a prima facie showing of his claims for relief. See Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323; Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1302. 7