SINGH v. WHITAKER (2019)

[Unpublished]

Indian citizen Amandeep Singh petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) finding that Singh was not credible, and denying him withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Singh’s appeal to the BIA stated generally that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was erroneous, without identifying any specific deficiencies in the IJ’s decision. Singh’s brief before this court does not even address the adverse credibility determination. Accordingly, we conclude that he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and has waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Chavero-Linares v. Smith, 782 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th Cir. 2015) (“Claims not raised in an opening brief are deemed waived.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Escoto-Castillo v. Napolitano, 658 F.3d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 2011) (“We have repeatedly held that failure to exhaust administrative immigration remedies precludes merits review of the unexhausted issue.”); Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (argument not meaningfully raised in opening brief is waived). The petition is denied.

PER CURIAM.