Singh v. Holder

13-2785 Singh v. Holder BIA Poczter, IJ A200 939 336 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 Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 31st day of October, two thousand fourteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SIMRANJIT SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 13-2785 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, New York. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant 27 Director, and Lisa M. Damiano, Trial 28 Attorney, Office of Immigration 29 Litigation, United States Department 30 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 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 Simranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks 6 review of a June 20, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming an 7 Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) April 12, 2012, denial of his 8 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 10 Simranjit Singh, No. A200 939 336 (B.I.A. June 20, 2013), 11 aff’g No. A200 939 336 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 12, 2012). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 15 IJ’s decision, including the portions not explicitly 16 discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 17 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The applicable 18 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 20 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 For applications such as Singh’s, governed by the REAL 22 ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality 23 of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on the 2 1 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the 2 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his 3 statements, “without regard to whether” they go “to the 4 heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 6 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We “defer therefore to an 7 IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of 8 the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact- 9 finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu 10 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. 11 Here, the IJ reasonably based the adverse credibility 12 determination on inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony 13 and the documentary evidence, the implausibility of his 14 testimony, and the lack of corroboration. As the agency 15 found, the record reflects three inconsistencies related to 16 Singh’s political activities and the alleged past harm. 17 First, Singh’s application stated that he led a group at a 18 political protest, but he testified that he was merely a 19 protester in the group. Second, Singh’s testimony that he 20 reported an attack by Congress Party members together with 21 his father contradicted both his application, which did not 22 mention that his father went to the police station, and his 3 1 father’s statement that Singh went to the police and then 2 told his father that the police had detained him when he 3 “returned from the police station.” Singh’s testimony also 4 conflicted with a letter from his political party, the 5 Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party (“SADA”), which 6 referenced seemingly less serious police harassment but made 7 no mention of any physical attacks by Congress Party 8 members. 9 Singh explained that his father did not enter the 10 station, but waited outside because his lack of education 11 made him ill-suited to file a complaint. He also explained 12 that he never reported his attacks to SADA. However, the IJ 13 reasonably found it implausible that his father, an 14 allegedly experienced political activist, would not 15 accompany his 18-year-old son inside the police station, and 16 that Singh would not tell his party that a competing party 17 was assaulting SADA members. See Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 18 509 F.3d 63, 67 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (holding that 19 implausibility finding is supported by substantial evidence 20 if “the reasons for [the IJ’s] incredulity are evident” and 21 “tethered to the record evidence”); see also Majidi v. 22 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that an 4 1 IJ is not required to credit an explanation for an 2 inconsistency unless a reasonable fact finder would be 3 compelled to do so). The IJ therefore reasonably relied on 4 these inconsistencies to support the adverse credibility 5 determination. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 6 1231(b)(3)(C); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. 7 In light of these inconsistencies, the IJ reasonably 8 gave the corroborating evidence (Singh’s father’s statement 9 and the SADA letter) minimal weight. See Xiao Ji Chen v. 10 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (the 11 weight to be accorded to documentary evidence lies largely 12 within the agency’s discretion). Given Singh’s lack of 13 credibility, the IJ did not err in finding that Singh’s 14 failure to provide other convincing corroboration further 15 weakened his claim. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 16 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). 17 Accordingly, the totality of the circumstances supports 18 the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 19 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. 20 The adverse credibility determination in this case 21 necessarily precludes success on his claims for asylum, 22 withholding of removal, and CAT relief, because the only 23 evidence of a threat to Singh’s life or freedom, or 5 1 likelihood of torture, depended upon his credibility. Paul 2 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 5 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 6 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 7 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for 8 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 9 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 10 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 11 FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 13 14 15 6