16-4016
Singh v. Sessions
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A206 035 040
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
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 10th day of September, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12 SARBJIT SINGH,
13 Petitioner,
14
15 v. 16-4016
16 NAC
17 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III,
18 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
19 Respondent.
20 _____________________________________
21
22 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights,
23 NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith,
27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jesse D.
28 Lorenz, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, DC.
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 Petitioner Sarbjit Singh, a native and citizen of India,
6 seeks review of a November 10, 2016, decision of the BIA
7 affirming a November 16, 2015, decision of an Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sarbjit Singh, No. A206 035
11 040 (B.I.A. Nov. 10, 2016), aff’g No. A206 035 040 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 16, 2015). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
17 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d
18 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review
19 are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Xiu Xia Lin v.
20 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 Considering the totality of the
22 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a
23 trier of fact may base a credibility
24 determination on the demeanor, candor, or
25 responsiveness of the applicant . . . ,
26 the consistency between the applicant’s .
2
1 . . written and oral statements . . . ,
2 the internal consistency of each such
3 statement, [and] the consistency of such
4 statements with other evidence of record .
5 . . without regard to whether an
6 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood
7 goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.
8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d
9 at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
10 determination that Singh was not credible as to his claim
11 that Congress Party and Shiromani Akali Dal Badal Party
12 members had attacked and threatened him on account of his
13 membership in the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party.
14 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies in
15 Singh’s evidence regarding who helped him escape an attack,
16 whether police attempted to extort money from him when he
17 reported a threat, and what party was behind the continuing
18 threats to his family. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
19 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67 & n.3. Singh did not provide
20 compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. See
21 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A
22 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation
23 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
24 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled
25 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks
26 omitted)). Moreover, when confronted with his inconsistent
3
1 evidence regarding the party responsible for the threats
2 against him, Singh became evasive and unresponsive lending
3 further support to the agency’s adverse credibility
4 determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also
5 Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d
6 Cir. 2006).
7 Given the inconsistency and demeanor findings, the
8 agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
9 substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That
10 determination is dispositive of Singh’s claims for asylum,
11 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three
12 claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v.
13 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED.
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4