Filed: Dec. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 16-2498 Garha v. Sessions BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A075 261 527 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 (WI
Summary: 16-2498 Garha v. Sessions BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A075 261 527 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 (WIT..
More
16-2498
Garha v. Sessions
BIA
Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ
A075 261 527
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 December, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JAGTAR SINGH GARHA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-2498
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York,
24 NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Keith I. McManus,
28 Assistant Director; Regan
29 Hildebrand, Senior Litigation
30 Counsel, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, United States
32 Department of Justice, Washington,
33 DC.
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 Jagtar Singh Garha, a native and citizen of
6 India, seeks review of a June 14, 2016, decision of the BIA
7 affirming a May 14, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”) denying Garha’s application for asylum, withholding of
9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Jagtar Singh Garha, No. A075 261 527 (B.I.A.
11 June 14, 2016), aff’g No. A075 261 527 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
12 May 14, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision, but not the reasons for
15 denying relief that the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang
16 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The
17 applicable standards of review are well established. See
18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510,
19 513 (2d 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 inconsistencies and
23 implausibilities in an applicant’s statements. 8 U.S.C.
2
1 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165
2 (2d Cir. 2008). In conducting “substantial evidence” review,
3 the Court “defer[s] . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination
4 unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that
5 no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse
6 credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
7 Substantial evidence supports the ruling against Garha.
8 His testimony diverged from his written submissions with
9 respect to multiple key dates. He testified that he joined the
10 Akali Dal Party in January 1985, but his first asylum
11 application said he joined in June 1985. He testified that the
12 police arrested him in February 1985, but his first asylum
13 application said February 1996. He testified variously (and
14 confusingly) that he first entered the United States in
15 September 1996, December 1988, and August 1988, but his second
16 asylum application said December 1988. He testified that he
17 returned to India in 1988, 1989, and 1990, but his second asylum
18 application said 1988, 1990, and 1992.
19 The agency also reasonably found that Garha failed to
20 submit reliable documentary evidence. An asylum applicant’s
21 failure to corroborate may bear on his credibility, “because
22 the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant
23 unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called
3
1 into question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d
2 Cir. 2007). Garha submitted four nearly identical affidavits
3 from friends and relatives, all dated in 2014, about his arrest
4 and beating in 1985. Garha testified that he had no Akali Dal
5 membership card (which the party issues each year) because he
6 threw his away in 1985. His only documentary evidence of
7 membership was a 2014 party letter identifying him as an active
8 member and describing his arrest and beating based on secondhand
9 information. The agency was within its discretion to give
10 these documents little or no evidentiary weight. Y.C. v.
11 Holder,
741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We defer to the
12 agency’s determination of the weight afforded to an alien’s
13 documentary evidence.”); Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
14
489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007) (explaining that the Court “has
15 firmly embraced the commonsensical notion that striking
16 similarities between affidavits are an indication that the
17 statements are ‘canned’”). Relatedly, the agency was entitled
18 to deem implausible the notion that Garha was a member of the
19 Akali Dal Party for thirty years without any more to show for
20 it. That implausibility finding was “tethered to record
21 evidence,” or to be more precise, the lack of any record
22 evidence. Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey,
509 F.3d 63, 67 (2d Cir.
23 2007).
4
1 The totality of the circumstances supports the agency’s
2 adverse credibility determination. Garha’s asylum,
3 withholding of removal, and CAT claims were all based on the
4 same factual predicate, and so the credibility determination
5 was dispositive as to all three forms of relief. See Paul v.
6 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
9 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
10 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
11 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
12 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
13 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
14 34.1(b).
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
