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