Filed: Feb. 08, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 08-1903-ag Singh v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A79 570 757 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 n
Summary: 08-1903-ag Singh v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A79 570 757 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 no..
More
08-1903-ag
Singh v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A79 570 757
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 8 th day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
10 REENA RAGGI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 SANDEEP SINGH,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 08-1903-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., 1 UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23 FOR PETITIONER: Hector M. Roman, Jackson Heights,
24 New York.
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2),
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is automatically substituted for
former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this
case.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant
2 Attorney General, Keith I. McManus,
3 Assistant Director, Hannah Baublitz,
4 Attorney, Office of Immigration
5 Litigation, Civil Division, United
6 States Department of Justice,
7 Washington, D.C.
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
12 is DENIED.
13 Petitioner Sandeep Singh, a native and citizen of
14 India, seeks review of a March 27, 2008 order of the BIA
15 affirming the November 15, 2004 decision of Immigration
16 Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson pretermitting his application
17 for asylum, and denying his application for withholding of
18 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture
19 (“CAT”). In re Sandeep Singh, No. A 79 570 757 (B.I.A. Mar.
20 27, 2008), aff’g No. A 79 570 757 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov.
21 15, 2004). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
22 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
23 As an initial matter, Singh fails to address the IJ’s
24 pretermission of his asylum application as time-barred. See
25 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Issues insufficiently argued in
26 the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be
27 addressed on appeal in the absence of manifest injustice.
28 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7
2
1 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Singh has waived any challenge
2 to the agency’s denial of his application for asylum. Id.
3 When the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision in some respects
4 but not others, this Court reviews the IJ’s decision as
5 modified by the BIA decision, i.e., minus the arguments for
6 denying relief that were rejected by the BIA. See Xue Hong
7 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.
8 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings, including
9 adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial
10 evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also
11 Corovic v. Mukasey,
519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008).
12 Singh’s brief in this Court fails to address several of
13 the findings that the IJ used to support her adverse
14 credibility determination. 2 Thus, they stand as valid bases
15 for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Shunfu
16 Li v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). Moreover,
17 substantial evidence supports the credibility findings Singh
18 does challenge. The IJ cited the inconsistency between
19 Singh’s first application (which stated that he was
20 mistreated by the police in 2001), and his second
21 application and testimony (which say that he was mistreated
2
For example, the IJ found that Singh’s credibility
was undermined because he lacked sufficient
corroboration.
3
1 in 1998). Singh explained that he attempted to contact the
2 English-speaking friend who prepared his first asylum
3 application to corroborate his claim, but that the friend’s
4 telephone was disconnected. However, the IJ did not accept
5 the explanation, and no reasonable fact-finder would have
6 been compelled to credit it. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
7 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2005).
8 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
9 credibility determination. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales,
446 F.3d
10 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006). Thus, the IJ’s denial of Singh’s
11 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
12 relief was proper where the only evidence that he would be
13 persecuted or tortured depended on his credibility. See
14 Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
17 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
18 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
19 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
20 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
21
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
24
25
26
4
