Filed: Feb. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 14, 2017
Summary: 14-3974 Singh v. Lynch BIA Poczter, IJ A200 941 609 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: 14-3974 Singh v. Lynch BIA Poczter, IJ A200 941 609 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
14-3974
Singh v. Lynch
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A200 941 609
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 19th day of February, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JAS PAL SINGH, AKA JASPAL SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-3974
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights,
24 New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; M.
28 Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior
29 Litigation Counsel; Anthony J.
1 Messuri, Trial Attorney, Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, 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 is
9 DENIED.
10 Petitioner Jas Pal Singh, a native and citizen of India,
11 seeks review of a September 26, 2014, order of the BIA affirming,
12 without opinion, a February 12, 2013, decision of an Immigration
13 Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum,
14 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
15 Torture (“CAT”). In re Jas Pal Singh, No. A200 941 609 (B.I.A.
16 Sept. 26, 2014), aff’g No. A200 941 609 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City
17 Feb. 12, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
18 underlying facts and procedural history.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s
20 decision as the final agency determination. See Shunfu Li v.
21 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable
22 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.
23 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162,
2
1 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). “Considering the totality of the
2 circumstances,” the agency may base a credibility finding on
3 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other
4 record evidence “without regard to whether” they go “to the
5 heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
6 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Here,
7 substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
8 Singh was not credible.
9 The IJ reasonably relied on inconsistencies between
10 Singh’s testimony and his earlier sworn statements to an asylum
11 officer during a credible fear interview. See also Xiu Xia Lin,
12 534 F.3d at 165. The IJ did not err in first crediting the
13 reliability of the interview: Singh’s statements were
14 typewritten, he was aided by an interpreter, and he indicated
15 that he understood the questions posed. See Ming Zhang v.
16 Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). The IJ found that
17 Singh’s testimony was inconsistent with that interview because
18 his testimony initially omitted that his sister had been raped,
19 and gave different dates for when he was allegedly attacked in
20 India. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534
21 F.3d at 166 n.3 (“An inconsistency and an omission are . . .
3
1 functionally equivalent.”). In addition, Singh omitted from
2 his interview (and his father omitted from his supporting
3 affidavit), Singh’s later assertion that opposition party
4 members had burned down their family home. See 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3. Singh
6 also testified inconsistently regarding whether he had ever
7 been arrested in India. Singh did not provide a compelling
8 explanation for any of the record inconsistencies. See Majidi
9 v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).
10 The IJ reasonably relied further on Singh’s failure to
11 provide certain corroborating evidence to rehabilitate his
12 discredited testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
496 F.3d
13 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Given the inconsistency and
14 corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility
15 determination is supported by substantial evidence, and is
16 dispositive of Singh’s claims for asylum, withholding of
17 removal, and CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
18 Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
21 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
4
1 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
2 is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
3 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
4 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
5 34.1(b).
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
