Filed: Apr. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 15-2419 Singh v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A201 292 537 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: 15-2419 Singh v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A201 292 537 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 T..
More
15-2419
Singh v. Sessions
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A201 292 537
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 21st day of April, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 KARNAIL SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-2419
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General; John S.
27 Hogan, Assistant Director; Andrea N.
28 Gevas, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, DC.
32
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 Karnail Singh, a native and citizen of India,
6 seeks review of a July 2, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming
7 a February 24, 2014, 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 Karnail Singh, No. A201 292 537 (B.I.A. July 2, 2015), aff’g
11 No. A201 292 537 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 24, 2014). We assume
12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history in this case.
14 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for
15 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
16 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable
17 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.
18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
19 Cir. 2009).
20 Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, in light of
21 “the totality of the circumstances,” base an adverse
22 credibility determination on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor,
23 candor, or responsiveness,” the plausibility of his account,
2
1 and inconsistencies in his statements. 8 U.S.C.
2 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
3 165 (2d Cir. 2008)(per curiam). In conducting “substantial
4 evidence” review, “we defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility
5 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,
6 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an
7 adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
8 The adverse credibility determination against Singh rests
9 on substantial evidence. Singh’s testimony diverged from his
10 asylum application in material ways. He testified that he was
11 beaten four times, but his application identified three
12 beatings. Singh later testified that he was beaten only three
13 times, and explained that the first incident he had alluded to,
14 in August 2010, involved threats, not physical abuse, and hence
15 he did not include it on his asylum application. A reasonable
16 adjudicator would not be compelled to credit this explanation;
17 as the IJ noted, the first occurrence purportedly marked the
18 start of his mistreatment at the hands of the Congress Party.
19 See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).
20 Singh’s testimony about his January 12, 2011 beating was
21 fraught with confusion. He variously testified that he went
22 to the hospital straight after he had been beaten up, he took
23 medication from the hospital before he went to the police
3
1 station, he took homemade medication before he went to the
2 police station, and he was arrested and taken to the police
3 station before he went to the hospital. Similarly, he
4 variously testified that he was never arrested, he was arrested
5 and beaten with sticks at the police station, and the Congress
6 Party beat him with sticks. He testified that he went to the
7 police station to give a report, but the police did not listen
8 to him, but moments later testified that after the Congress
9 Party made a complaint against him, the police arrested him.
10 Finally, his asylum application stated that after the January
11 12, 2011 incident with Congress Party members, he was held
12 overnight. However, he variously testified that he was at the
13 police station for two to three hours, he was held for four hours
14 in the evening and released the next day, and he was assaulted
15 by Congress Party members in the morning and arrested
16 afterwards.
17 These inconsistencies amply support the adverse
18 credibility determination. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. In
19 his petition for review, Singh explains that he felt intimidated
20 on cross-examination. The agency was not compelled to accept
21 that explanation.
Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. Moreover, as the
22 BIA noted, several of the inconsistencies outlined above arose
23 during direct examination by Singh’s own attorney.
4
1 Singh challenges the agency’s decision to give diminished
2 weight to his documentary evidence. “We defer to the agency’s
3 determination of the weight afforded to an alien’s documentary
4 evidence.” Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013).
5 The reason given here--the authors were unavailable for
6 cross-examination--was a proper basis for the exercise of the
7 agency’s discretion, particularly in light of the adverse
8 credibility determination. Siewe v. Gonzales,
480 F.3d 160,
9 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A] single false document or a single
10 instance of false testimony may (if attributable to the
11 petitioner) infect the balance of the alien’s uncorroborated
12 or unauthenticated evidence.”).
13 Singh argues that the agency had to analyze his CAT claim
14 separately, and cites background evidence of prisoner suicides
15 while in Indian police custody as warranting CAT relief. If
16 a CAT claim is based on the same facts that the agency found
17 not credible in analyzing the asylum claim, that credibility
18 determination is dispositive. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t
19 of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005); Paul v. Gonzales,
20
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). That rule applies here:
21 Singh claims he will be tortured based on his past incidents
22 with the Congress Party and police, but the agency discredited
23 his testimony that those incidents ever occurred. That
5
1 credibility determination was fatal to his CAT claim.
2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
3 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
4 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
5 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
6 is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
7 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
8 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
9 34.1(b).
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
