Singh v. Lynch

14-1293
Singh v. Lynch
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A200 939 213
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 7th day of August, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JATINDER SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-1293
17 NAC
18
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Fremont, CA.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Russell J.E.
28 Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel;
29 John D. Williams, Trial Attorney,
 1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 United States Department of Justice,
3 Washington D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Jatinder Singh, a native and citizen of

10 India, seeks review of an April 2, 2014, decision of the

11 BIA, affirming the June 14, 2012, decision of an Immigration

12 Judge (“IJ”), denying his application for asylum,

13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jatinder Singh, No. A200 939

15 213 (B.I.A. Apr. 2, 2014), aff’g No. A200 939 213 (Immig.

16 Ct. N.Y. City June 14, 2012). We assume the parties’

17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

18 in this case.

19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

20 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA -- that is, minus

21 those arguments for denying relief the BIA failed to reach.

22 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520,

23 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are

24 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin

2
 1 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For asylum

2 applications like Singh’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, the

3 agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the

4 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on

5 inconsistencies in an applicant’s statements and other

6 record evidence “without regard to whether” they go “to the

7 heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.

8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,

9 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008). In this case, the agency’s adverse

10 credibility determination is supported by substantial

11 evidence.

12 The IJ reasonably relied on several inconsistencies to

13 discredit Singh’s testimony. First, Singh testified that

14 after the Congress party beat him, he was treated at home

15 and that his father was absent. However, Singh’s parents’

16 affidavits state that they both treated his injuries,

17 contradicting Singh's testimony. When confronted, Singh

18 explained that he could not remember if his father was home,

19 but the IJ reasonably rejected this explanation. See Majidi

20 v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).

21 Second, both affidavits say “me and my husband” treated

22 Singh after his injuries, even though Singh’s father wrote

3
 1 one of the affidavits. This unusual similarity casts doubt

2 on the authenticity of both of these affidavits. Surinder

3 Singh v. BIA, 438 F.3d at 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006).

4 Third, while Singh testified that the Congress Party

5 does not harass his family, Singh submitted a letter from

6 his own political party stating that the Congress Party

7 continues to harass his family. The IJ reasonably relied on

8 this discrepancy, which was sufficiently dramatic that the

9 IJ was not required to bring it to Singh’s attention before

10 relying on it in his decision. Majidi, 430 F.3d at 81.

11 Finally, both Singh’s asylum application and a party

12 official’s letter failed to mention that his party reported

13 his beatings to the police. Standing alone, this omission

14 would be insufficient to support an adverse credibility

15 determination. Pavlova v. INS, 441 F.3d 82, 90 (2d Cir.

16 2006). However, when considered together with the other

17 inconsistencies in the record and the suspicious similarity

18 between Singh’s parents’ affidavits, the IJ reasonably

19 relied on this omission as one part of the totality of the

20 circumstances. See Liang Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 454 F.3d

21 103, 106-107 (2d Cir. 2006).

22

4
 1 Because Singh’s claims depend entirely on his

2 credibility, the adverse credibility determination is

3 sufficient to dispose of his claims for asylum, withholding

4 of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d

5 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of

6 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2006). Therefore, we do

7 not reach the IJ’s additional grounds for denying relief.

8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

9 DENIED.

10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
12
13
14

5