Filed: Apr. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 17-2596 Singh v. Barr BIA A200 905 739 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 “SUMMAR
Summary: 17-2596 Singh v. Barr BIA A200 905 739 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..
More
17-2596
Singh v. Barr
BIA
A200 905 739
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 8th day of April, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 DALJIT SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 17-2596
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Usman B. Ahmad, Long Island City,
24 NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Bernard A.
28 Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel;
29 Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou,
30 Trial Attorney, Office of
31 Immigration Litigation, United
32 States Department of Justice,
33 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
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Daljit Singh, a native and citizen of India,
6 seeks review of a July 25, 2017, decision of the BIA, denying
7 his motion to reopen. In re Daljit Singh, No. A200 905 739
8 (B.I.A. July 25, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity
9 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
10 The applicable standards of review are well established.
11 See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir.
12 2008). “A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted
13 unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be
14 offered is material . . . .” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see
15 also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B). The BIA did not abuse its
16 discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen because his
17 evidence failed to rebut the agency’s underlying adverse
18 credibility determination. See Kaur v. BIA,
413 F.3d 232,
19 234 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding no abuse of discretion in the
20 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen when it “clearly explained
21 that the evidence submitted by petitioner in support of [the]
22 motion was not ‘material’ because it did not rebut the adverse
2
1 credibility finding that provided the basis for the IJ’s
2 denial of petitioner’s underlying asylum application.”).
3 In his underlying proceedings, Singh claimed that members
4 of the Akali Dal Badal political party had attacked him and
5 would attack him in the future on account of his membership
6 in the Akali Dal Mann party. He raised the same claim in his
7 motion to reopen, and submitted affidavits asserting that
8 Badal Party members had recently attacked his brother and
9 friend when they refused to reveal Singh’s whereabouts. The
10 BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to credit these
11 affidavits given the underlying adverse credibility
12 determination and given that they were prepared by friends
13 and family members in India. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales,
14 500 F.3d 143, 146-49 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Y.C. v. Holder,
15
741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013). Further, the newly
16 submitted evidence did not overcome Singh’s problematic
17 demeanor or his prior inconsistent evidence.
18 The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in failing to
19 explicitly discuss Singh’s country conditions evidence. See
20 Wei Guang Wang v. BIA,
437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W]e
21 reject any implication . . . that where the BIA has given
22 reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate
3
1 findings, it must expressly parse or refute on the record
2 each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the
3 petitioner.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also
4 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 336 n.17
5 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W]e presume that an IJ has taken into
6 account all of the evidence before him, unless the record
7 compellingly suggests otherwise.”). Singh has not cited any
8 specific evidence that the BIA ignored, directed the Court’s
9 attention to any specific evidence that is relevant, or
10 explained how his generalized country conditions evidence
11 overcomes the underlying adverse credibility findings.
12 Given that Singh’s underlying claim was based on the same
13 factual predicate as the claim raised in his motion to reopen,
14 his failure to rebut the adverse credibility determination
15 was fatal to his motion to reopen to apply for asylum,
16 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Kaur,
413 F.3d
17 at 234; see also Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d
18 Cir. 2006).
19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
20 DENIED.
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
23 Clerk of Court
4
