Singh v. Lynch

15-1107 Singh v. Lynch BIA Christensen, IJ A200 812 419 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 20th day of September, two thousand sixteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JASPREET SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 15-1107 17 NAC 18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, New York, 24 New York. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 27 Assistant Attorney General; Mary 28 Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; 29 Michael C. Heyse, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of Justice, 32 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 is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Jaspreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, 6 seeks review of a March 11, 2015 decision of the BIA, affirming 7 a November 14, 2012 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 8 denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, 9 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 10 re Jaspreet Singh, No. A200 812 419 (B.I.A. Mar. 11, 2015), aff’g 11 No. A200 812 419 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 14, 2012). We assume 12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both the 15 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 18 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 19 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 20 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 21 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies 22 in an asylum applicant’s statements and other record evidence 2 1 “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the 2 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 3 Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the 4 agency’s adverse credibility determination, which was 5 primarily based on inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony 6 and his earlier sworn statements to an asylum officer during 7 a credible fear interview. 8 As an initial matter, the agency reasonably found the 9 record of Singh’s credible fear interview reliable. See Ming 10 Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 725 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Where the 11 record of a credible fear interview displays the hallmarks of 12 reliability, it appropriately can be considered in assessing 13 an alien’s credibility.”). During the interview, Singh was 14 provided an interpreter. An asylum officer memorialized the 15 interview in typewritten question and answer format. And the 16 answers recorded demonstrate that Singh understood the 17 questions posed. 18 The inconsistencies between Singh’s credible fear 19 interview and hearing testimony provide substantial support for 20 the adverse credibility determination. Singh’s testimony 21 conflicted with his statements during his credible fear 22 interview regarding whether (1) members of the Shiromani Akali 3 1 Dal Party or the Congress Party attacked him in India, (2) he 2 was beaten or escaped being beaten during a January 2010 3 incident, (3) his brother was severely attacked and 4 hospitalized or never harmed, and (4) he feared living in the 5 Punjab or all of India. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67. 6 The IJ reasonably concluded that Singh’s nervousness during his 7 credible fear interview did not provide a compelling 8 explanation for his numerous inconsistent sworn statements. 9 See Ming Zhang, 585 F.3d at 722; see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 10 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). 11 Having questioned Singh’s credibility, the IJ reasonably 12 relied further on Singh’s failure to provide certain 13 corroborating evidence that might rehabilitate his testimony. 14 See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). 15 Nor did the IJ abuse his discretion in denying Singh’s request 16 for a continuance to obtain corroborating statements from his 17 mother and brother because Singh had more than two years to 18 obtain such statements and he already had received and submitted 19 documentary evidence obtained and mailed by his brother. See 20 Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551-52 (2d Cir. 2006); see 21 also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167-68. 22 These inconsistencies and lack of corroboration constitute 4 1 substantial evidence supporting the agency’s adverse 2 credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 3 see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-68. That determination 4 is dispositive of Singh’s claims for asylum, withholding of 5 removal, and CAT relief, because all three claims are based on 6 the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 7 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 10 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 11 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 12 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 13 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 14 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 15 34.1(b). 16 FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5