Case: 21-60606 Document: 00516411128 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 28, 2022 No. 21-60606 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

Lovepreet Singh, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A216 758 890

Before Davis, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Lovepreet Singh petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-60606 Document: 00516411128 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2022

No. 21-60606

review the decision for substantial evidence, Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005), and consider the IJ’s decision only insofar as it influenced that of the BIA, Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).

Because the BIA did not accept the IJ’s credibility determination, Singh’s challenge to this determination is misplaced and need not be considered. See Singh, 880 F.3d at 224. His due process argument fails because he has not shown prejudice. See Santos-Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2020).

Singh fails to brief, and has thus abandoned any challenge he may have had to, the BIA’s conclusion that he could avoid harm by relocating within India and thus was not entitled to relief. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, n.1 (5th Cir. 2021). The relocation determination alone is a sufficient basis for the BIA’s decision. See Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 407- (5th Cir. 2020); Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 772 (5th Cir. 2019); 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(b), (c), 1208.13(b). Consequently, we need not address his remaining arguments. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).

The petition for review is DENIED.