Balwinder Singh v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-12007
____________________
BALWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A208-200-407
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-12007 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 03/27/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-12007
Before J ILL PRYOR , GRANT, and H ULL , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Balwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of
the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) (1) denial of his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”) relief, and (2) denial of his motions for a continuance and
change of venue. Singh was represented by counsel before the IJ
and the BIA. Singh conceded removability.
After a merits hearing on his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief, the IJ found Singh’s
testimony lacked credibility for multiple reasons. Alternatively,
even assuming Singh was credible, the IJ denied the application on
several other merits grounds. The BIA affirmed based on the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding without reaching the other issues.
In his petition for review, Singh contends that the BIA and IJ
erred by denying him asylum and withholding of removal based on
an adverse credibility finding. We review factual determinations,
including credibility determinations, under the substantial
evidence test.
Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254–55 (11th
Cir. 2006). We must affirm if an agency’s decision “is supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.”
Id. (quotation marks omitted).
Here, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
finding. In light of the multiple, significant inconsistencies in
USCA11 Case: 21-12007 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 03/27/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

21-12007 Opinion of the Court 3
Singh’s testimony and the record as a whole, Singh has failed to
show that the record compels a finding that he was credible.1
Further, under the totality of the circumstances in this
particular case, Singh has not shown any reversible error or abuse
of discretion in the denials of his motions for a change of venue and
a continuance.
PETITION DENIED.
1 In his initial brief, Singh makes only passing references to his CAT claim.
Accordingly, Singh has forfeited this issue, and we will not discuss it further.
See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009). In
addition, given the BIA denied Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims only on credibility grounds, we need not consider Singh’s other
arguments as to these claims.
USCA11 Case: 21-12007 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 03/27/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --