20-333
Singh v. Garland
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A208 455 405
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
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 26th day of April, two thousand twenty-
5 three.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 Chief Judge,
10 STEVEN J. MENASHI,
11 EUNICE C. LEE,
12 Circuit Judges.
13 _____________________________________
14
15 HARJOT SINGH, AKA HWJOT SINGH,
16 Petitioner,
17
18 v. 20-333
19 NAC
20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25
26 FOR PETITIONER: Dalbir Singh, Esq., Dalbir Singh
27 & Assoc., PC, New York, NY.
28
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
2 Assistant Attorney General;
3 Bernard A. Joseph, Senior
4 Litigation Counsel; Erik R. Quick,
5 Trial Attorney, Office of
6 Immigration Litigation, United
7 States Department of Justice,
8 Washington, DC.
9
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
13 is DENIED.
14 Petitioner Harjot Singh, a native and citizen of India,
15 seeks review of a December 30, 2019, decision of the BIA
16 affirming an April 9, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge
17 (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of
18 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
19 (“CAT”). In re Harjot Singh, No. A208 455 405 (B.I.A. Dec.
20 30, 2019), aff’g No. A208 455 405 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr.
21 9, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
22 underlying facts and procedural history.
23 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s
24 and the BIA’s opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
25 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the
26 agency’s adverse credibility determination “under the
27 substantial evidence standard,” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891
2
1 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the administrative findings
2 of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator
3 would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C.
4 § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Considering the totality of the
5 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may
6 base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency
7 between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral
8 statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such
9 statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with
10 other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an
11 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of
12 the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” Id.
13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility
14 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,
15 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an
16 adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
17 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).
18 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
19 that Singh was not credible as to his claim that members of
20 the Bharatiya Janata Party and Akali Dal Badal Party beat him
21 and threatened to kill him on account of his work for the
22 Akali Dal Mann Party. The agency reasonably relied on
3
1 inconsistencies in Singh’s evidence regarding whether he
2 reported a death threat to police, how police responded to
3 the report of his attack, and whether his family members were
4 harassed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). He failed to
5 provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies.
6 See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A
7 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation
8 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
9 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled
10 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks
11 omitted)).
12 The agency also reasonably found that the striking
13 similarities between Singh’s supporting affidavits impugned
14 his credibility. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 489
15 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]his court has . . . firmly
16 embraced the commonsensical notion that striking similarities
17 between affidavits are an indication that the statements are
18 ‘canned.’”); Singh v. BIA, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006)
19 (upholding agency’s reliance on “nearly identical language in
20 the written affidavits allegedly provided by different
21 people”). Singh’s explanation that the notary might have
22 been the source of the identical language does not compel a
4
1 contrary conclusion. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80–81.
2 The inconsistencies and strikingly similar affidavits
3 provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility
4 determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also
5 Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020)
6 (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from
7 showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible.
8 Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even more
9 forcefully.”). The adverse credibility determination is
10 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief
11 because all three claims are based on the same factual
12 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d
13 Cir. 2006).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
16 stays VACATED.
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
19 Clerk of Court
5