16-3857 Singh v. Sessions BIA Hom, IJ A205 409 269 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 27th day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 BACHITTER SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3857 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Leslie McKay, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Margot L. 28 Carter, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 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 is

4 DENIED.

5 Petitioner Bachitter Singh, a native and citizen of India,

6 seeks review of an October 14, 2016, decision of the BIA

7 affirming a March 17, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge

8 (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of

9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

10 (“CAT”). In re Bachitter Singh, No. A 205 409 269 (B.I.A. Oct.

11 14, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 409 269 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City March

12 17, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both

15 the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales,

16

(2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are

17 well established. See

(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin

18 v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008).

19 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the

20 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on

21 inconsistencies or omissions in an applicant’s oral and written 2 1 statements and other record evidence. 8 U.S.C.

2 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin,

.

3 “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless .

4 . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such

5 an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin,

.

6 The adverse credibility determination is supported by

7 substantial evidence.

8 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between

9 Singh’s testimony and his medical records. Singh’s sole

10 allegation of past persecution was that he was hospitalized on

11 account of being beaten by members of a rival political party.

12 He testified to the name of the hospital where he was treated

13 and the doctor who treated him, but the medical record he

14 submitted was from a different hospital and written by a

15 different doctor. See Xiu Xia Lin,

. When asked

16 to explain this discrepancy, Singh speculated that the hospital

17 may have changed owners and thus the letter was prepared by a

18 new doctor. This explanation was not compelling because the

19 record reflected that it was authored by a doctor who personally

20 examined Singh. See Majidi v. Gonzales,

(2d

21 Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible 3 1 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief;

2 he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be

3 compelled to credit his testimony.” (quotation marks and

4 citation omitted)). These inconsistencies regarding the

5 hospital and doctor both relate to the sole incident of alleged

6 persecution and call into question the validity of Singh’s

7 documentary evidence, therefore undermining his credibility as

8 a whole. Siewe v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007)

9 (“[A] single false document or a single instance of false

10 testimony may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the

11 balance of the alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated

12 evidence.”).

13 Singh also argues that the IJ erred in declining to credit

14 other documentary evidence. The IJ did abuse his discretion

15 because Singh’s evidence was filed late, the medical record was

16 inconsistent with his testimony, and the additional evidence

17 did not confirm his beating or hospitalization. See Xiao Ji

18 Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d Cir. 2006);

19

(c). This failure to corroborate bolstered

20 the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Biao Yang v.

21 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007). 4 1 As discussed above, the inconsistencies fully undermine

2 Singh’s credibility and provide substantial evidence for the

3 adverse credibility determination. Xiu Xia Lin,

167. The adverse credibility determination was dispositive

5 because asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief were all

6 based on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2006).

8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal

10 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,

11 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition

12 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument

13 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of

14 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule

15 34.1(b).

16 FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

5