18-1968
Singh v. Barr
BIA
Cassin, IJ
A206 469 227
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
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 1st day of July, two thousand twenty.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 PARWINDER SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 18-1968
17 NAC
18
19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New
25 York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
28 Attorney General; Walter Bocchini,
29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Monica
30 M. Twombly, Trial Attorney, Office
31 of Immigration Litigation, United
1 States Department of Justice,
2 Washington, DC.
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Parwinder Singh, a native and citizen of
9 India, seeks review of a June 4, 2018, decision of the BIA
10 affirming an August 21, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge
11 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of
12 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
13 (“CAT”). In re Parwinder Singh, No. A206 469 227 (B.I.A.
14 June 4, 2018), aff’g No. A206 469 227 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
15 Aug. 21, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
16 underlying facts and procedural history.
17 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s
18 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
19 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d
20 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
21 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v.
22 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).
23 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
24 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
2
1 determination on . . . the consistency between the
2 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . ,
3 the internal consistency of each such statement, the
4 consistency of such statements with other evidence of
5 record . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency,
6 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s
7 claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C.
8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility
9 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,
10 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an
11 adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
12 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d
13 at 76. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
14 determination that Singh was not credible as to his claim
15 that members of the Akali Dal Badal attacked him three times
16 in India on account of his membership in a rival political
17 party, the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar (“SADA”).
18 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistent evidence
19 regarding when Singh began his association with the SADA
20 party, what harm his father suffered on account of politics,
21 what happened during Singh’s alleged attacks, and when Singh
22 went to the hospital for treatment. See 8 U.S.C.
3
1 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). When provided an opportunity to
2 explain these inconsistencies, Singh further undermined his
3 credibility by changing his testimony so that it was
4 internally inconsistent. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d
5 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer
6 a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to
7 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-
8 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal
9 quotation marks omitted)).
10 The agency also reasonably relied further on Singh's
11 failure to rehabilitate his testimony with reliable
12 corroborating evidence. “An applicant’s failure to
13 corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility,
14 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an
15 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already
16 been called into question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d
17 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The IJ reasonably found that
18 affidavits from two of Singh’s acquaintances undermined
19 Singh’s credibility further because the affidavits were
20 identical in every respect, including grammatical and
21 typographical errors. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of
22 Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that we
4
1 “ha[ve] firmly embraced the commonsensical notion that
2 striking similarities between affidavits are an indication
3 that the statements are 'canned'”).
4 The IJ also reasonably declined to afford weight to the
5 affidavit from Singh’s parents because, in addition to
6 inconsistencies with Singh’s testimony about his medical
7 treatment, the authors were interested parties who were not
8 available for cross-examination. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741
9 F.3d 324, 332, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that “[w]e
10 generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to
11 be afforded an applicant’s documentary evidence” and
12 upholding BIA’s decision not to credit letter from
13 applicant’s spouse); see also In re H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. &
14 N. Dec. 209, 215 (B.I.A. 2010) (finding that letters from
15 alien’s friends and family were insufficient to provide
16 substantial support for alien’s claims because they were from
17 interested witnesses not subject to cross-examination),
18 overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677
19 F.3d 130, 133–38 (2d Cir. 2012). And, contrary to Singh’s
20 contention, the agency explicitly acknowledged statements
21 from the doctors who purportedly treated him and did not err
22 in finding those statements, which were prepared for the
5
1 hearing rather than contemporaneously with the treatment,
2 insufficient to rehabilitate Singh’s credibility. See Y.C.,
3 741 F.3d at 332.
4 Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings, the
5 agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
6 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
7 That determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of
8 removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based
9 on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
10 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
13 stays VACATED.
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
16 Clerk of Court
6