Filed: May 22, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 17-804 Singh v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A206 445 290 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 NOTAT
Summary: 17-804 Singh v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A206 445 290 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 NOTATI..
More
17-804
Singh v. Barr
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A206 445 290
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 22nd day of May, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 GURSHARAN SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 17-804
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights,
24 NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Terri J.
28 Scadron, Assistant Director; Greg
29 D. Mack, 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
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Gursharan Singh, a native and citizen of
6 India, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an Immigration
7 Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Singh’s application for
8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gursharan Singh,
10 No. A 206 445 290 (B.I.A. Feb. 28, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 445
11 290 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 1, 2016). Under the
12 circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and BIA’s
13 decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d
14 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). In doing so, we assume the parties’
15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
16 in this case.
17 We review adverse credibility determinations under the
18 substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions,
891 F.3d 67, 76
20 (2d Cir. 2018). The governing REAL ID Act credibility
2
1 standard provides as follows:
2 Considering the totality of the circumstances,
3 and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may
4 base a credibility determination on . . . the
5 consistency between the applicant’s or
6 witness’s written and oral statements[,] . . .
7 the internal consistency of each such
8 statement, the consistency of such statements
9 with other evidence of record[,] . . . and any
10 inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements,
11 without regard to whether an inconsistency,
12 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of
13 the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant
14 factor.
15
16 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s
17 credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no
18 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility
19 ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.
20 2008); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
21 In this case, the agency relied on the following factors:
22 Singh’s difficulty describing the specific activities he
23 performed for the Akali Dal Mann Party, in particular, his
24 failure to testify that he hung posters for the party’s
25 rallies until the Government’s attorney specifically asked
26 him about this; his testimony that he had back or spinal
27 surgery after the August 2013 attack, which was omitted from
3
1 his asylum application and doctor’s letter; his testimony
2 that Indian police and opposing party members harassed his
3 family members after he left India, which was omitted from
4 his amended asylum application and his father’s 2015 letter;
5 and his failure to provide, when asked by the IJ, evidence
6 corroborating his claim that other members of his party were
7 similarly harmed, or otherwise to explain why such evidence
8 was not reasonably available.
9 Each of these inconsistencies or omissions is supported
10 by the record. Even if a single one of these discrepancies
11 or omissions, on its own, would not provide substantial
12 evidence for the adverse credibility ruling, their cumulative
13 effect, under the totality of the circumstances, could have
14 led a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that Singh
15 exaggerated his role in the Mann Party, the severity of his
16 mistreatment, and the objective reasonableness of his fear of
17 returning to India and, therefore, was not credible. See Xiu
18 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Hong Fei
Gao, 891 F.3d at
19 80-81 & n.4 (“We do not suggest that omissions regarding
20 medical treatment can never be the basis of an adverse
4
1 credibility determination. We emphasize simply that such
2 omissions must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and
3 weighed in light of the totality of the circumstances.”).
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED.
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
8 Clerk of Court
5
