Singh v. Sessions
Singh v. Sessions
Opinion
16-3090 Singh v. Sessions BIA Vomacka, IJ A201 291 255
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 27th day of March, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 PETER W. HALL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CHARANJIT SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3090 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Anthony C. 27 Payne, Assistant Director; Lance 28 L. Jolley, Trial Attorney, Office 29 of Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Charanjit Singh, a native and citizen of
6 India, seeks review of an August 9, 2016, decision of the
7 BIA affirming a June 23, 2015, decision of an Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Charanjit Singh, No. A201
11 291 255 (B.I.A. Aug. 9, 2016), aff’g No. A201 291 255
12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 23, 2015). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
17 Gonzales,
432 F.3d 391, 394(2d Cir. 2005). The standards
18 of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66
20 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
22 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination
2 1 on “the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s
2 written and oral statements . . . the internal consistency
3 of each such statement, the consistency of such statements
4 with other evidence of record . . . and any inaccuracies or
5 falsehoods in such statements.” 8 U.S.C.
6 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin,
534 F.3d at 163-64, 166-
7 67. “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination
8 unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
9 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia
10 Lin,
534 F.3d at 167.
11 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion
12 that Singh was not credible. Significant inconsistencies
13 between Singh’s testimony and application on one hand and
14 his statements to an asylum officer on the other provide
15 substantial evidence for the adverse credibility
16 determination.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xian
17 Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
446 F.3d 289, 295(2d
18 Cir. 2006) (holding that material inconsistency relating to
19 central aspect of asylum claim provided substantial
20 evidence for adverse credibility determination). Singh’s
21 application and testimony described five beatings by either
22 members of the Congress Party or Hindu nationalists,
3 1 including incidents between 2007 and 2010. But when asked
2 at his credible fear interview how many times he was harmed
3 or threatened, he described only the two 2010 incidents.
4 The agency reasonably relied on this omission to assess
5 Singh’s credibility. See Xiu Xia Lin,
534 F.3d at 166&
6 n.3 (“An inconsistency and an omission
7 are . . . functionally equivalent” for credibility
8 purposes); Ming Zhang v. Holder,
585 F.3d 715, 726(2d Cir.
9 2009) (“Omissions that go to a heart of an applicant’s
10 claim can form the basis for an adverse credibility
11 determination.” (internal quotation marks and brackets
12 omitted)). The agency was not compelled to accept Singh’s
13 explanation that the interpreter told him only to answer
14 the questions asked and nothing else, because the asylum
15 officer specifically asked Singh how many times he was
16 harmed. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80(2d Cir.
17 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible
18 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure
19 relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder
20 would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal
21 quotation marks and citation omitted)).
4 1 The agency also did not err in relying on the credible
2 fear interview to assess Singh’s credibility. Contrary to
3 Singh’s argument, “[w]here the record of a credible fear
4 interview displays the hallmarks of reliability, it
5 appropriately can be considered in assessing an alien’s
6 credibility.” Ming Zhang,
585 F.3d at 725. The agency did
7 not err in finding the interview record sufficiently
8 reliable: it contains a recitation of the asylum officer’s
9 questions, Singh’s responses, follow-up questions, and
10 Singh’s additional responses; and there is no indication
11 that Singh did not understand the questions asked. See
id.12 at 721, 725.
13 An inconsistency between Singh’s testimony and a letter
14 from his mother regarding his treatment by the police in India
15 further supports the agency’s conclusion that he was not
16 credible.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin,
17
534 F.3d at 167(reasoning that “an IJ may rely on any
18 inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility
19 determination” and upholding reliance on omissions and
20 inconsistencies stemming from letters). Singh’s mother
21 reported that he was “tortured by the police of India,”
22 whereas Singh stated that the police had never arrested or
5 1 harmed him. Singh argues that the IJ failed to consider his
2 explanation that the police refused to help him when he sought
3 their assistance after he was attacked. But the record
4 reflects that the IJ considered this explanation; however,
5 the IJ was not compelled to accept it because it did not
6 resolve why Singh’s mother claimed that the police tortured
7 him. Majidi,
430 F.3d at 80-81.
8 Given these omissions and inconsistencies, substantial
9 evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
10 determination. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xian
11 Tuan Ye,
446 F.3d at 295-96. Because Singh’s claims all
12 relied on his credibility, the adverse credibility
13 determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of
14 removal, and CAT relief. Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148,
15 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
18 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
19 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
20 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
21 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
6 1 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
2 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished