18-2012
Singh v. Garland
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A206 029 865
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 11th day of January, two thousand twenty-
5 two.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 AMARJEET SINGH,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 18-2012
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Amarjeet Singh, pro se, Franklin
25 Square, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez
1 Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel;
2 Margot P. Kniffin, Trial Attorney,
3 Office of Immigration Litigation,
4 United States Department of
5 Justice, Washington, DC.
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Amarjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India,
11 seeks review of a June 13, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming
12 a June 28, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
13 denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
14 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Amarjeet Singh,
15 No. A206 029 865 (B.I.A. June 13, 2018), aff’g No. A206 029
16 865 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 28, 2017). We assume the
17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
18 history.
19 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions.
20 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d
21 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
22 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v.
23 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse
24 credibility determination for substantial evidence).
2
1 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
2 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
3 determination on . . . the consistency between the
4 applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . , the
5 internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the
6 consistency of such statements with other evidence of record
7 . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy,
8 or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or
9 any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
10 “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination
11 unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could
12 make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v.
13 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei
14 Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence supports the
15 adverse credibility determination.
16 As an initial matter, the agency reasonably relied on
17 the record of Singh’s asylum interview because it was
18 memorialized in a typewritten document listing the questions
19 and Singh’s answers, the interviewer asked questions designed
20 to elicit an asylum claim, and the record does not reveal
21 that Singh had difficulty understanding the interpreter. See
3
1 Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 725 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Where
2 the record of a credible fear interview displays the hallmarks
3 of reliability, it appropriately can be considered in
4 assessing an alien’s credibility.”). Accordingly, the agency
5 reasonably relied on inconsistencies between the interview
6 and Singh’s testimony and within Singh’s testimony regarding
7 how many people attacked him in June 2012, whether the
8 perpetrators of a 2013 attack were affiliated with the
9 Congress Party, what political activities he engaged in after
10 the attacks, and whether his father reported his own attack
11 to the police or was threatened with arrest for trying to.
12 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Likai Gao v. Barr, 968
13 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single
14 inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ
15 was compelled to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies
16 would so preclude even more forcefully.”); Xiu Xia Lin, 534
17 F.3d at 167 (allowing agency to rely on cumulative effect of
18 even minor inconsistencies); Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 78–79
19 (“In the immigration context, in assessing the probative
20 value of the omission of certain facts, an IJ should consider
21 whether those facts are ones that a credible petitioner would
4
1 reasonably have been expected to disclose.”). The agency was
2 not required to accept Singh’s explanations that he could not
3 remember certain details. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d
4 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer
5 a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to
6 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-
7 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal
8 quotation marks omitted)).
9 Moreover, Singh did not rehabilitate his credibility with
10 reliable corroboration. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d
11 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to
12 corroborate his . . . testimony may bear on credibility,
13 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an
14 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already
15 been called into question.”). The agency reasonably gave
16 limited weight to Singh’s brother’s testimony, letters from
17 his father, a village leader, and a party official, and
18 medical documents. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d
19 Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of
20 the weight to be afforded an applicant’s documentary
21 evidence.”). His brother’s testimony was inconsistent with
5
1 his brother’s own asylum application, his father was an
2 interested witness unavailable for cross examination, the
3 village leader and party official were similarly unavailable
4 for cross examination and their letters lacked details
5 regarding Singh’s attacks, and the medical document also
6 lacked detail and was not contemporaneous with the alleged
7 treatment. Id. at 334 (upholding BIA’s decision to afford
8 little weight to letter from applicant’s spouse in China);
9 Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (B.I.A.
10 2010) (finding letters from relatives and friends did not
11 provide substantial support for claim where authors were
12 “interested witnesses . . . not subject to cross-
13 examination”), overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v.
14 Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012).
15 Finally, Singh’s due process arguments fail. His
16 attorney did not object to the admission of the interview
17 record, and Singh failed to demonstrate the requisite
18 prejudice from the inclusion of his bond proceeding in the
19 administrative record, particularly as neither the IJ nor the
20 BIA referenced the bond proceedings. See Garcia-Villeda v.
21 Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (requiring prejudice
6
1 to state a due process claim).
2 In sum, taken cumulatively, the inconsistencies and lack
3 of reliable corroboration provide substantial evidence for
4 the adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The
6 adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum,
7 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms
8 of relief are based on the same discredited factual predicate.
9 See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
12 stays VACATED.
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
15 Clerk of Court
7