20-1191
Singh v. Garland
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A208 931 006
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 28th day of March, two thousand twenty-two.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 GURJASPREET SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 20-1191
17 NAC
18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Dalbir Singh & Associates, New
24 York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
27 Assistant Attorney General; Holly
28 M. Smith, Senior Litigation
1 Counsel; Brett F. Kinney,
2 Attorney, Office of Immigration
3 Litigation, United States
4 Department of Justice, Washington,
5 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 Gurjaspreet Singh, a native and citizen of
11 India, seeks review of a March 13, 2020, decision of the BIA
12 affirming an April 16, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge
13 (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
15 Gurjaspreet Singh, No. A208 931 006 (B.I.A. March 13, 2020),
16 aff’g No. A208 931 006 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 16, 2018).
17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
18 and procedural history.
19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the
20 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d
21 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review
22 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei
23 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing
24 adverse 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, the consistency
6 of such statements with other evidence of
7 record . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency,
8 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s
9 claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C.
10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s
11 credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no
12 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility
13 ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.
14 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial
15 evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh was
16 not credible as to his claim that he was twice attacked by
17 members of rival political parties on account of his support
18 for the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party.
19 The agency reasonably relied on several omissions from
20 Singh’s application and his inconsistent testimony regarding
21 the severity of his injuries. See 8 U.S.C.
3
1 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh testified that he received
2 medical attention after both attacks and that his father
3 accompanied him to a medical clinic both times; but he omitted
4 these facts from the detailed written statement included in
5 his application. While the omission of minor medical
6 treatment will not always support an adverse credibility
7 determination, the IJ reasonably relied on these omissions
8 because Singh volunteered the information on direct
9 examination, his medical treatment was substantial (two
10 different shots, pills, and a lotion, and a two-hour visit
11 after the second attack), and when he attempted to explain
12 the omission, he provided inconsistent testimony about the
13 severity of his injuries. Cf. Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 78–
14 82. And those inconsistent explanations about the severity
15 of his injuries further undermined his claim and did not
16 explain the omissions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
17 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A
18 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation
19 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
20 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled
21 to credit his testimony.” (quotation marks omitted)). The
4
1 agency also reasonably relied on Singh’s omission from his
2 application of his claim that his father accompanied him to
3 the police station when he attempted to report the first
4 attack, particularly as the application indicated that he
5 went to the police station directly after the attack. See 8
6 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
7 Second, the adverse credibility determination finds
8 further support in the lack of reliable corroboration. “An
9 applicant’s failure to corroborate his . . . testimony may
10 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in
11 general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony
12 that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v.
13 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency
14 reasonably afforded Singh’s supporting letters minimal weight
15 because Singh provided inconsistent testimony about how he
16 obtained the letter from the party president and the letters
17 contained errors and omissions that called into question
18 their veracity. 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”).
5
1 In sum, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
2 adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C.
3 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; Biao Yang,
4 496 F.3d at 273. This determination is dispositive of
5 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all
6 three forms of relief are based on the same discredited
7 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–
8 57 (2d Cir. 2006).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
11 stays VACATED.
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
14 Clerk of Court
6