Gurmanpreet Singh v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11924
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
GURMANPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A216-265-942
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11924 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11924
Before J ILL PRYOR , B RANCH, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gurmanpreet Singh petitions for review of the Board of Im-
migration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Con-
vention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). He argues that the BIA’s de-
cision upholding an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) finding that his tes-
timony was not credible is not supported by substantial evidence.
When, as here, the BIA adopts the reasoning of an IJ’s deci-
sion, we review both decisions. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). Factual and credibility deter-
minations are reviewed for substantial evidence. Forgue v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). The decision is af-
firmed if the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the deci-
sion, shows that the decision was supported by substantial, reason-
able, probative evidence. Id. An adverse credibility finding must
be based on specific and cogent reasons. Id. at 1287. To reverse an
adverse credibility determination, the applicant must show that the
record compels reversal. Id. Demonstrating that the record may
also support a contrary conclusion is not sufficient to justify rever-
sal. Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1351.
To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must prove that he
either (1) has been persecuted in the past based on race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
USCA11 Case: 23-11924 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-11924 Opinion of the Court 3
opinion; or (2) has a well-founded fear that he will be persecuted in
the future on such grounds. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228,
1231 (11th Cir. 2006). Credible testimony can, by itself, prove eli-
gibility. Id. However, an adverse credibility finding may form the
basis for a denial of relief. Id. An IJ may consider the testimony’s
consistency with record evidence when deciding if it is credible.
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii),
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). An alien who cannot establish asylum
eligibility on the merits also cannot establish eligibility for with-
holding of removal or CAT relief. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1288 n.4.
Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision up-
holding the IJ’s finding that Singh’s testimony was not credible. See
Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286-87. Singh’s testimony that he was attacked
on May 8, 2017, is inconsistent with record evidence showing that
he was treated for his injuries on May 5, 2017. His testimony that
he received stitches on his head is inconsistent with medical records
that do not mention a head injury. Finally, his testimony that his
parents were attacked after he left India is inconsistent with the
medical records stating that his parents were treated for injuries
from that attack in May 2017, almost a year before Singh left India.
These are specific and cogent reasons justifying the IJ’s finding that
Singh’s testimony was not credible. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287;
INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Even if the rec-
ord would also support Singh’s theory that the inconsistencies are
because of errors in the supporting documents, rather than in his
testimony, he cannot show that the IJ’s decision to discredit his tes-
timony based on these inconsistencies was so lacking in support as
USCA11 Case: 23-11924 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11924
to compel reversal. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286-87; Kazemzadeh,
577 F.3d at 1351. The BIA did not err in affirming the denial as a
result. See Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231.
PETITION DENIED
USCA11 Case: 23-11924 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --