Filed: Jan. 26, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-5233-ag Singh v. Holder BIA Reichenberg, IJ A096 200 156 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 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
Summary: 09-5233-ag Singh v. Holder BIA Reichenberg, IJ A096 200 156 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 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 ..
More
09-5233-ag
Singh v. Holder
BIA
Reichenberg, IJ
A096 200 156
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
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 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 26 th day of January, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 GURJIT SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 09-5233-ag
17 v. NAC
18
19
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, New
26 York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
29 General; William C. Peachey,
30 Assistant Director; Daniel E.
31 Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel,
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 Civil Division, United States
3 Department of Justice, Washington,
4 D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Gurjit Singh, a native and citizen of India,
11 seeks review of a November 20, 2009 decision of the BIA
12 affirming the July 31, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge
13 (“IJ”) Margaret R. Reichenberg denying his application for
14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gurjit Singh, No.
16 A096 200 156 (B.I.A. Nov. 20, 2009), aff’g No. A096 200 156
17 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. July 31, 2007). We assume the parties’
18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
19 of the case.
20 We need not address the IJ’s pretermission of Singh’s
21 asylum application as untimely because the BIA assumed that
22 Singh’s asylum application was timely filed. See Yan Chen
23 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly,
24 the only issue before us for review is the agency’s adverse
25 credibility determination. Under the circumstances of this
2
1 case, we review the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
2 including portions not explicitly discussed by the BIA. See
3 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005).
4 The applicable standards of review are well-established.
5 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v.
6 Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).
7 The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported
8 by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu
9 Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. First, we defer to the IJ’s
10 finding that Singh did not appear to testify from personal
11 experience but rather from information that he had
12 memorized. See Dong Gao v. BIA,
482 F.3d 122, 126-27 (2d
13 Cir. 2007); see also Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1
14 (2d Cir. 2005). Second, the IJ reasonably concluded that
15 Singh’s testimony about his detentions was vague and lacked
16 detail due to Singh’s inability, despite repeated
17 questioning, clearly to specify not only the number of
18 people who beat him but any injuries that resulted from his
19 treatment in detention. See Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329
20 F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2003). Third, the IJ did not err in
21 finding the account of Singh’s entry into the United States
22 to be implausible because that finding was based on record
3
1 evidence “viewed in the light of common sense and ordinary
2 experience.” Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 169 (2d Cir.
3 2007).
4 In addition, the IJ reasonably found that Singh failed
5 to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence to
6 rehabilitate his questionable testimony. See Biao Yang v.
7 Gonzales,
496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The IJ
8 reasonably questioned the veracity of letters submitted by
9 Amrik Singh and Lakhvir Singh because their form and content
10 were “virtually identical.” See Surinder Singh v. BIA, 438
11 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006). Further, the IJ reasonably
12 noted the lack of corroborating details in the letters Singh
13 submitted and that his wife had not provided a letter to
14 corroborate his claim. See Biao
Yang, 496 F.3d at 273.
15 Finally, the IJ did not err in finding that the fact
16 that the head of the local Mann party and Singh’s family
17 remained unharmed in Singh’s village in India diminished his
18 contention that he would face persecution in the future.
19 See Melgar de Torres v. Reno,
191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir.
20 1999).
21 In sum, the agency reasonably determined that Singh
22 failed credibly to demonstrate past persecution, a well-
4
1 founded fear of persecution, or a clear probability of
2 future persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu
3 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Accordingly, the agency did not
4 err in denying Singh’s applications for asylum, withholding
5 of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d
6 148, 155-56 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
7 Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19
5
