Singh v. Garland

Opinion

Case: 20-60330 Document: 00515885887 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 20-60330 June 3, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Sukhchain 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 747 822

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* 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

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60330 Document: 00515885887 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2021

No. 20-60330

immigration judge’s 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.