Filed: Dec. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 16-2818 Singh v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A205 587 104 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: 16-2818 Singh v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A205 587 104 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
16-2818
Singh v. Sessions
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A205 587 104
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 20th day of December, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SUNDER SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-2818
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier,
27 Assistant Director; Matt A. Crapo,
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States
30 Department of Justice, Washington,
31 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 Sunder Singh, a native and citizen of India,
6 seeks review of a July 20, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming
7 a January 5, 2016, 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 Sunder Singh, No. A 205 587 104 (B.I.A. July 20, 2016), aff’g
11 No. A 205 587 104 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 5, 2016). We assume
12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history in this case.
14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision, including the portions
15 not explicitly discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales,
16 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of
17 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
18 Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
19 Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, in light of
20 “the totality of the circumstances,” base an adverse
21 credibility determination on inconsistencies in an applicant’s
2
1 statements, “without regard to whether” those inconsistencies
2 go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
3 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165
4 (2d Cir. 2008). In conducting “substantial evidence” review,
5 “we defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless,
6 from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no
7 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility
8 ruling.” Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
9 The adverse credibility determination in this case is
10 sound. As the IJ observed, Singh testified that in February
11 2012, his brother was at the sweet shop when members of the
12 Congress Party tried to intimidate his brother into joining
13 their ranks and then beat Singh. On cross-examination, Singh
14 confirmed that his brother was present. That account
15 conflicted with multiple documents in the record. In his
16 credible fear interview, Singh stated that his brother was not
17 at the store. Singh’s asylum application also stated that his
18 brother fled Punjab in 2008, and that in 2012 the Congress Party
19 members went to the sweet shop to instruct Singh to tell his
20 brother to quit his party after they could not “trace” his
21 brother. CAR at 250. Likewise, the letters from Singh’s mother
3
1 and friend stated that Singh’s brother had fled and that in the
2 2012 incident, the Congress Party members demanded that Singh
3 tell his brother to quit the Akali Dal Mann Party. Lastly, the
4 letter from the Akali Dal Mann Party said that Singh’s brother
5 had fled in 2008.
6 When confronted with the inconsistency, Singh explained
7 that he was scared at his credible fear interview, and that his
8 brother had returned to Punjab and was living in hiding in the
9 sweet shop. Singh then adhered to his testimony, asserting
10 that in the 2012 incident, the Congress Party members threatened
11 his brother, who then left. The IJ reasonably rejected this
12 explanation, inferring that Singh would say anything to remedy
13 the discrepancy. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.
14 2005) (explaining that the agency is not required to credit an
15 explanation that is merely plausible or possible). And the IJ
16 reasonably discredited Singh’s testimony that he was frightened
17 during the credible fear interview, noting that the interview
18 record mirrored Singh’s asylum application, which Singh updated
19 years after being released from custody without changing that
20 detail. Ming Zhang v. Holder,
585 F.3d 715, 725 (2d Cir. 2009)
21 (“We again reject the notion that a petitioner’s claim that she
4
1 was nervous and distracted during the credible fear interview
2 automatically undermines or negates its reliability as a source
3 of her statements.”).
4 A single inconsistency or omission that goes to the heart
5 of a claim can support an adverse credibility finding. See,
6 e.g., Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289,
7 294-95 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, moreover, there were additional
8 inconsistencies. Singh testified to two incidents: the 2012
9 beating and a 2013 threat. But the letters from Singh’s mother
10 and friend described both as beatings. The IJ was not compelled
11 to credit Singh’s explanation that his mother and friend
12 misperceived the threat as a beating.
Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.
13 The IJ cited a third gap between Singh’s testimony and
14 documentary evidence, regarding Singh’s involvement with the
15 Akali Dal Mann Party. Singh testified that starting in 2005,
16 he attended meetings and rallies and put up posters. But
17 although the letter from the Akali Dal Mann Party mentioned
18 Singh’s brother’s membership, it said nothing about Singh’s
19 work for the party. Singh’s explanation for this
20 inconsistency--that his brother was the member and Singh was
21 only a supporter--was not compelling.
Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.
5
1 Given the inconsistencies described above, the totality of
2 the circumstances amply supports the agency’s adverse
3 credibility determination against Singh. His asylum,
4 withholding of removal, and CAT claims were all based on the
5 same factual predicate, and so the credibility determination
6 was dispositive as to all three forms of relief. See Paul v.
7 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED.
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
