Filed: Jul. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 16-3903 Singh v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A206 296 671 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
Summary: 16-3903 Singh v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A206 296 671 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 N..
More
16-3903
Singh v. Sessions
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A206 296 671
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 6th day of July, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 AMARJOT SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-3903
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Amarjot Singh, pro se, Jamaica, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General, Civil Division;
27 John S. Hogan, Assistant Director;
28 Ashley Martin, Trial Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, 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 Amarjot Singh, a native and citizen of India,
6 seeks review of an October 25, 2016, decision of the BIA
7 affirming a June 15, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of
9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Amarjot Singh, No. A 206 296 671 (B.I.A. Oct.
11 25, 2016), aff’g No. A 206 296 671 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June
12 15, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
15 the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales,
16 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are
17 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Xiu Xia Lin v.
18 Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
19 “Considering the totality of the circumstances . . . a trier
20 of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor,
21 candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness,” or on
2
1 inconsistencies or omissions in an applicant’s oral and written
2 statements and other record evidence, regardless of whether any
3 such discrepancies “go[] to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
4 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64,
5 166-67. “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination
6 unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could
7 make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin,
534 F.3d
8 at 167. The agency’s adverse credibility determination is
9 supported by substantial evidence.
10 The agency reasonably relied on omissions from Singh’s
11 application and corroborating documents as well as his
12 inconsistent statements about the harm his father suffered in
13 India. See
id. (agency reasonably relied on the “cumulative
14 effect” of omissions from both application and supporting
15 letter). Further, Singh’s application and supporting letters
16 omitted any mention that he had a brother in the United States
17 who fled India for similar political reasons. And Singh
18 neither presented compelling explanations nor rehabilitated
19 his testimony with a statement from his brother. See Majidi
20 v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner
21 must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his
3
1 inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate
2 that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his
3 testimony.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)); Biao Yang
4 v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007)(agency reasonably
5 relied on a failure to corroborate “because the absence of
6 corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to
7 rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into
8 question”).
9 We defer to the agency’s conclusion that Singh’s omissions
10 and inconsistencies undermined his credibility, see Siewe v.
11 Gonzales,
480 F.3d 160, 166-68 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Where there are
12 two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice
13 between them cannot be clearly erroneous. . . . Rather, a
14 reviewing court must defer to that choice so long as the
15 deductions are not illogical or implausible.” (internal
16 citations and quotation marks omitted)), and we conclude that
17 the inconsistencies and omissions provide substantial evidence
18 for the adverse credibility determination, 8 U.S.C. §
19 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Because
20 Singh’s claims were all based on the same factual predicate,
21 the adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum,
4
1 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales,
2 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED.
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
