Filed: Sep. 21, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 21, 2020
Summary: 18-1957 Singh v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A208 569 583 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER* RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (
Summary: 18-1957 Singh v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A208 569 583 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER* RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (W..
More
18-1957
Singh v. Barr
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A208 569 583
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER*
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 16th day of September, two thousand twenty.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 DMARMINDER SINGH, AKA DHARMINDER
14 SINGH,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 18-1957
18 NAC
19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Deepti Vithal, Richmond Hill, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Jonathan A. Robbins,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Dana M.
29 Camilleri, Trial Attorney, Office
* The Court’s initial order stated the decision date as September 16, 2019.
This amended order, issued on September 21, 2020, correctly states the
decision date as September 16, 2020.
1 of Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, DC.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Dmarminder Singh, a native and citizen of
10 India, seeks review of a June 13, 2018, decision of the BIA
11 affirming an August 7, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge
12 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of
13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Dmarminder Singh, No. A208 569 583 (B.I.A.
15 June 13, 2018), aff’g No. A208 569 583 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
16 Aug. 7, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
17 underlying facts and procedural history.
18 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s
19 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
20 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528
21 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
22 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v.
23 Sessions,
891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).
24
2
1 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
2 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
3 determination on . . . the consistency between the
4 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . ,
5 the internal consistency of each such statement, the
6 consistency of such statements with other evidence of
7 record . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency,
8 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s
9 claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C.
10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
11 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence supports the
12 agency’s determination that Singh was not credible as to his
13 claim that members of the Akali Dal Badal party beat him twice
14 in India on account of his membership in the Shiromani Akali
15 Dal Amritsar Party.
16 The agency reasonably relied on Singh’s inconsistent
17 statements regarding whether police in India detained and
18 harmed him when he reported being beaten by members of the
19 Badal Party. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh did
20 not provide compelling explanations for this inconsistency.
21 See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A
22 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation
3
1 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
2 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled
3 to credit his testimony.” (internal citation and quotation
4 marks omitted)).
5 The agency also reasonably found that Singh’s inability
6 to recall the name of his political party impugned his
7 credibility because it was inconsistent with his claim that
8 he was targeted and beaten on account of his active membership
9 in that party. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh
10 attempted to explain that he could not recall the name of his
11 party because his beatings had impacted his memory. The IJ
12 was not compelled to credit that explanation because Singh
13 did not submit medical evidence of memory issues and was able
14 to recall the name of the party that targeted him. See
15 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.
16 The agency also reasonably relied on the inconsistency
17 between Singh’s statements during his credible fear interview
18 and his hearing testimony regarding when he was threatened
19 and beaten in India. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). As
20 an initial matter, the agency did not err in relying on the
21 record of Singh’s credible fear interview because the record
22 of the interview was sufficiently reliable, in that the
4
1 interview was conducted with an interpreter, it was
2 memorialized in a typewritten, question-and-answer format,
3 the questions posed were designed to elicit details of Singh’s
4 asylum claim, and Singh’s responses indicated that he
5 understood the questions. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d
6 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). Singh testified that the
7 beatings he suffered occurred in the fourth and fifth months
8 of 2015. When confronted with his inconsistent statement at
9 his credible fear interview that he was beaten in the sixth
10 month, Singh changed his testimony to conform with his
11 interview, stating that he was beaten in the fifth and sixth
12 months. This created a new inconsistency with his interview,
13 in which he had stated that his second beating occurred during
14 the ninth month. Further, his testimony that he was
15 threatened in the fourth and fifth months was inconsistent
16 with his interview statement that he was threatened in the
17 eighth month.
18 Given the inconsistency findings, the agency’s adverse
19 credibility determination is supported by substantial
20 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That
21 determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of
22 removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based
5
1 on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
2 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we do not
3 consider the agency’s alternative burden finding. See I.N.S.
4 v. Bagamasbad,
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule
5 courts and agencies are not required to make findings on
6 issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results
7 they reach.”).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
10 stays VACATED.
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
13 Clerk of Court
14
6
