Filed: May 17, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 18-264 Singh v. Barr BIA Vomacka, IJ A205 442 726 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: 18-264 Singh v. Barr BIA Vomacka, IJ A205 442 726 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
18-264
Singh v. Barr
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A205 442 726
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 17th day of May, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 PARGAT SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 18-264
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
19 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; Anthony C.
28 Payne, Assistant Director; Liza S.
29 Murcia, Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 Pargat Singh, a native and citizen of India,
6 seeks review of a December 28, 2017, decision of the BIA
7 affirming an April 28, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of
9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Pargat Singh, No. A205 442 726 (B.I.A. Dec.
11 28, 2017), aff’g No. A205 442 726 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr.
12 28, 2017). 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
15 the IJ’s decision without consideration of the IJ’s denial of
16 asylum as untimely or the IJ’s finding regarding Singh’s
17 difficulty defining the term Khalistan because the BIA
18 explicitly declined to rely on those findings. See Xue Hong
19 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.
20 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
21 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v.
22 Sessions,
891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).
2
1 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
2 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
3 determination on . . . the consistency between the
4 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . ,
5 the internal consistency of each such statement, the
6 consistency of such statements with other evidence of
7 record . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency,
8 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s
9 claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C.
10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
11 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence supports the
12 agency’s determination that Singh was not credible as to his
13 claim that police detained and beat him twice in India on
14 account of his membership in the Akali Dal Mann Party and his
15 fear of similar harm in the future.
16 The agency reasonably relied on Singh’s inconsistent
17 statements regarding the date he joined his party, whether he
18 had uncut hair and wore a turban in India in accordance with
19 his Sikh faith, and when he cut his hair in relation to his
20 decision to travel to the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
21 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
22 Having questioned Singh’s credibility, the agency
3
1 reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate his
2 testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. “An
3 applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may
4 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in
5 general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony
6 that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v.
7 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). As the IJ found,
8 Singh failed to provide any evidence to rehabilitate his
9 inconsistent testimony regarding the date he joined Akali Dal
10 Mann, his medical certificates indicated that they were
11 issued in 2011 and thus conflicted with his testimony that
12 they were issued to his father years later, and his village
13 leader’s and mother’s affidavits were not reliable due to
14 strikingly similar language including identical typographical
15 errors. See Y.C. v. Holder,
741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013)
16 (“We generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of the weight
17 to be afforded an applicant’s documentary evidence.”); see
18 also Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
489 F.3d 517, 524
19 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]his court has . . . firmly embraced the
20 commonsensical notion that striking similarities between
21 affidavits are an indication that the statements are canned.”
22 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
4
1 Given Singh’s inconsistent evidence and insufficient
2 corroboration, the agency’s adverse credibility determination
3 is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C.
4 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Contrary to Singh’s argument, the
5 credibility determination was dispositive of asylum,
6 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three
7 claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul
8 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED.
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
13 Clerk of Court
5
