10-4581-ag
Singh v. Holder
BIA
Elstein, IJ
A094 824 567
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 28th day of June, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 _______________________________________
11
12 VIKRAM SINGH, AKA VIKRAM GHOTRA, AKA
13 VIKRAM SINGH CHOTRA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-4581-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, N.Y.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,
27 Assistant Director; Judith R.
28 O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Office
29 of Immigration Litigation, Civil
30 Division, United States Department
31 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1
2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
5 is DENIED.
6 Petitioner Vikram Singh, a native and citizen of India,
7 seeks review of an October 14, 2010, order of the BIA
8 affirming the July 6, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge
9 (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein denying his application for
10 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
11 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Vikram Singh, No.
12 A094 824 567 (B.I.A. Oct. 14, 2010), aff’g No. No. A094 824
13 567 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 6, 2009). We assume the
14 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
15 procedural history in this case.
16 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
17 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See
18 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005).
19 Singh argues that the agency erred in pretermitting his
20 asylum application as untimely because (1) it applied the
21 wrong legal standard in requiring him to provide direct
22 evidence of when he entered the United States, and (2) he
23 established his date of entry. However, we will not address
2
1 Singh’s first argument as the issue was not presented to or
2 considered by the BIA. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep't of
3 Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007) (reaffirming that
4 this Court “may consider only those issues that formed the
5 basis for [the BIA’s] decision”). And we do not have
6 jurisdiction to consider Singh’s second argument, as it
7 “disputes the correctness of an IJ’s fact-finding,” Xiao Ji
8 Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir.
9 2006), relating to the agency’s conclusion that his asylum
10 application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
11 (providing that Courts do not have jurisdiction to review
12 the agency’s finding that an asylum application was
13 untimely).
14 With regard to withholding of removal and CAT relief,
15 the agency found that Singh was not credible because of
16 inconsistencies between his testimony and his Canadian
17 asylum application and drivers’ license, his evasive
18 demeanor, and his failure to provide corroboration of his
19 claims, such as his passport, direct proof of the date of
20 his entry, or affidavits from witnesses in India. Singh
21 failed to sufficiently challenge most of these findings, see
22 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7
3
1 (2d Cir. 2005), and they stand as a valid basis for the
2 agency’s adverse credibility determination, see Shunfu Li v.
3 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008).
4 While the agency’s statement that Singh did not present
5 affidavits from witnesses in India was flawed, we decline to
6 remand because “there is no realistic possibility” that the
7 agency would reach a different conclusion on remand. Cao He
8 Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 401 (2d Cir.
9 2005). The agency’s inconsistency and demeanor findings are
10 largely supported by the record and provide substantial
11 evidence in support of the agency’s adverse credibility
12 determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (providing
13 that the agency may base an adverse credibility
14 determination on inconsistencies without regard to whether
15 they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim”). Because
16 Singh’s requests for withholding of removal, and CAT relief
17 shared the same common factual basis, the agency’s finding
18 that his testimony was not credible supports the denial of
19 relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 157 (2d Cir.
20 2006).
21
22
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5