Singh v. Holder

09-5233-ag Singh v. Holder BIA Reichenberg, IJ A096 200 156 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 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 26 th day of January, two thousand eleven. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 ______________________________________ 12 13 GURJIT SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 09-5233-ag 17 v. NAC 18 19 20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 ______________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, New 26 York. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 29 General; William C. Peachey, 30 Assistant Director; Daniel E. 31 Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 Civil Division, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 D.C. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Gurjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, 11 seeks review of a November 20, 2009 decision of the BIA 12 affirming the July 31, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge 13 (“IJ”) Margaret R. Reichenberg denying his application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gurjit Singh, No. 16 A096 200 156 (B.I.A. Nov. 20, 2009), aff’g No. A096 200 156 17 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. July 31, 2007). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 19 of the case. 20 We need not address the IJ’s pretermission of Singh’s 21 asylum application as untimely because the BIA assumed that 22 Singh’s asylum application was timely filed. See Yan Chen 23 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, 24 the only issue before us for review is the agency’s adverse 25 credibility determination. Under the circumstances of this 2 1 case, we review the IJ’s adverse credibility determination 2 including portions not explicitly discussed by the BIA. See 3 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). 4 The applicable standards of review are well-established. 5 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. 6 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). 7 The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported 8 by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu 9 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. First, we defer to the IJ’s 10 finding that Singh did not appear to testify from personal 11 experience but rather from information that he had 12 memorized. See Dong Gao v. BIA, 482 F.3d 122, 126-27 (2d 13 Cir. 2007); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 14 (2d Cir. 2005). Second, the IJ reasonably concluded that 15 Singh’s testimony about his detentions was vague and lacked 16 detail due to Singh’s inability, despite repeated 17 questioning, clearly to specify not only the number of 18 people who beat him but any injuries that resulted from his 19 treatment in detention. See Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 20 F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2003). Third, the IJ did not err in 21 finding the account of Singh’s entry into the United States 22 to be implausible because that finding was based on record 3 1 evidence “viewed in the light of common sense and ordinary 2 experience.” Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 169 (2d Cir. 3 2007). 4 In addition, the IJ reasonably found that Singh failed 5 to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence to 6 rehabilitate his questionable testimony. See Biao Yang v. 7 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The IJ 8 reasonably questioned the veracity of letters submitted by 9 Amrik Singh and Lakhvir Singh because their form and content 10 were “virtually identical.” See Surinder Singh v. BIA, 438 11 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006). Further, the IJ reasonably 12 noted the lack of corroborating details in the letters Singh 13 submitted and that his wife had not provided a letter to 14 corroborate his claim. See Biao Yang, 496 F.3d at 273. 15 Finally, the IJ did not err in finding that the fact 16 that the head of the local Mann party and Singh’s family 17 remained unharmed in Singh’s village in India diminished his 18 contention that he would face persecution in the future. 19 See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 20 1999). 21 In sum, the agency reasonably determined that Singh 22 failed credibly to demonstrate past persecution, a well- 4 1 founded fear of persecution, or a clear probability of 2 future persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu 3 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Accordingly, the agency did not 4 err in denying Singh’s applications for asylum, withholding 5 of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 6 148, 155-56 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 7 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005). 8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 16 FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 18 19 5