Mandeep Singh v. Loretta Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18910
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Singh, an Indian citizen, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2011 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, alleging threats and physical harm from members of a rival political party in India.
- An IJ denied relief; the BIA affirmed but remanded for additional CAT findings. On remand the IJ again denied CAT relief and ordered removal; Singh did not appeal that removal order.
- Over nine months after the removal order, Singh filed an untimely motion to reopen, asserting new threats from Indian police accusing him of terrorist training and additional threats against his family.
- Singh supported the motion with affidavits (from his mother and village Sarpanch) and the State Department’s 2012 Country Report for India, arguing changed country conditions justified reopening.
- The IJ denied the motion; the BIA dismissed Singh’s appeal, finding the Country Report did not show materially changed country conditions and that Singh’s evidence mainly reflected personal circumstances rather than a change in country conditions.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial under the highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Singh's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was reopening warranted based on changed country conditions? | The 2012 State Department Country Report shows human-rights abuses and increased targeting, supporting changed country conditions. | The Report does not demonstrate conditions materially different from those when Singh was ordered removed. | Denied — Report shows continuation of ongoing violence, not a material change. |
| 2) Do new threats to Singh and his family qualify as changed country conditions? | New police threats and accusations create a new danger warranting reopening. | Those facts constitute changed personal circumstances, not changed country conditions. | Denied — the claims are personal changes, insufficient to show changed country conditions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2005) (sets highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for BIA denial of motions to reopen)
- Ramos v. Lynch, [citation="622 F. App'x 432"] (5th Cir. 2015) (evidence showing a continuance of ongoing violence may not establish changed country conditions)
- Das v. Holder, [citation="490 F. App'x 672"] (5th Cir. 2012) (same)
- Thomas v. Holder, [citation="396 F. App'x 60"] (5th Cir. 2010) (same)
- Himani v. Mukasey, [citation="305 F. App'x 229"] (5th Cir. 2008) (same)
- Gatamba v. Holder, [citation="485 F. App'x 690"] (5th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes personal threats from changed country conditions)
- Yang Xin Chun v. Holder, [citation="335 F. App'x 454"] (5th Cir. 2009) (personal circumstances generally do not constitute changed country conditions)
- Keivani v. Gonzales, [citation="214 F. App'x 469"] (5th Cir. 2007) (same)