Filed: Aug. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 14-2329 Singh v. Lynch BIA Poczter, IJ A200 956 393 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 NOT
Summary: 14-2329 Singh v. Lynch BIA Poczter, IJ A200 956 393 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 NOTA..
More
14-2329
Singh v. Lynch
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A200 956 393
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 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 16th day of August, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 PALWINDER SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-2329
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Palwinder Singh, pro se, Painted
24 Post, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; John W.
28 Blakeley, Assistant Director;
29 Christina J. Martin, Trial Attorney,
30 Office of Immigration Litigation,
31 United States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Palwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India,
6 seeks review of a June 13, 2014, decision of the BIA, affirming
7 an October 5, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
8 denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal,
9 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
10 re Palwinder Singh, No. A200 956 393 (B.I.A. June 13, 2014),
11 aff’g No. A200 956 393 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 5, 2012). We
12 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
18 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
19 Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may,
20 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a
21 credibility finding on inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s
22 statements and other record evidence “without regard to
23 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
24 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
2
1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
2 Singh was not credible.
3 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between
4 The testimony and his written application. See 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67. The
6 testimony and written application were inconsistent regarding
7 the particulars of the August 2010 attack he allegedly suffered,
8 such as whether he was walking or on a bicycle and whether two
9 of his three assailants were police officers or members of a
10 rival party. Singh’s statements were also inconsistent as to
11 whether he played a large role as head of the youth wing in his
12 political party, or a small one. When questioned about these
13 discrepancies, Singh’s answers were evasive and nonresponsive
14 and the agency was not compelled to credit them. See Majidi
15 v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).
16 Having questioned Singh’s credibility, the agency
17 reasonably relied further on his failure to provide sufficient
18 corroborating evidence to rehabilitate his testimony. See
19 Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
20 Although Singh submitted letters from his doctor and his
21 political party, the letters omitted mention of his first
22 attack, and thus did not corroborate (and in fact weakened) his
23 claim that he was attacked twice. See Xiu Xia Lin,
534 F.3d
24 at 166-67 n.3. The agency also reasonably declined to credit
3
1 letters from Singh’s relatives and friend because the authors
2 did not provide copies of their identification documents and
3 were not available for cross-examination. See Y.C. v. Holder,
4 741 F.3d 324, 332, 334 (2d Cir. 2013).
5 Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings,
6 substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
7 determination. See Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. That
8 finding is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and
9 CAT relief because all three claims are based on the same factual
10 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
11 2006).
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
14 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
15 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
16 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
17 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
18 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
19 34.1(b).
20 FOR THE COURT:
21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4
