17-470 Singh v. Barr BIA Vomacka, IJ A200 286 037 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 29th day of March, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 TEJINDER SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-470 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Kohsei Ugumori, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; David 28 Kim, 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

4 is DENIED.

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

6 seeks review of a January 23, 2017, decision of the BIA

7 affirming a February 12, 2016, decision of an Immigration

8 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding

9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

10 (“CAT”). In re Tejinder Singh, No. A200 286 037 (B.I.A. Jan.

11 23, 2017), aff’g No. A200 286 037 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb.

12 12, 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

15 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. Yan Chen v.

16 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2005). The applicable

17 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.

18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,

, 165-

19 66 (2d Cir. 2008); Gjerjaj v. Holder,

(2d

20 Cir. 2012).

21 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all

22 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility

2 1 determination on . . . the consistency between the

2 applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . , the

3 internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the

4 consistency of such statements with other evidence of

5 record . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency,

6 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s

7 claim.”

(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin,

at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s

9 determination that Singh was not credible as to his claim

10 that members of the Dera Sacha Sauda sect (“DSS”) attacked

11 him in 2007 and 2008 and threatened to kill him if he did not

12 join their sect in 2011.

13 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between

14 Singh’s credible fear interview and his testimony because the

15 interview record was sufficiently reliable. See 8 U.S.C.

16 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Ming Zhang v. Holder,

,

17 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). The interview was conducted with an

18 interpreter, the interview was memorialized in a typewritten

19 question and answer format, the questions posed were designed

20 to elicit details of Singh’s asylum claim, and Singh’s

21 responses indicated that he understood the questions. See

22 Ming Zhang,

. And Singh’s statements at

3 1 the interview were inconsistent with his testimony regarding

2 whether he knew why his father did not report his 2007 attack

3 to police, how many people attacked him in 2008, whether he

4 or his father reported his 2008 attack to police, whether DSS

5 members approached him on his way to or from temple in 2011,

6 and whether they gave him one or two months to join their

7 sect. See

(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh did not

8 compellingly explain these inconsistencies, see Majidi v.

9 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must

10 do more than offer a plausible explanation for his

11 inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate

12 that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit

13 his testimony.” (internal quotations omitted)), but rather

14 his changing and inconsistent explanations provided further

15 support for the adverse credibility determination, see

16

(b)(1)(B)(iii).

17 The agency also reasonably relied on discrepancies in

18 Singh’s evidence regarding the medical attention he received

19 in 2007. See

(b)(1)(B)(iii). In his written

20 statement and testimony, Singh stated that he went to a clinic

21 for first aid and denied having gone to a hospital. However,

22 he submitted a letter from a doctor stating that Singh had

4 1 been admitted to a hospital in critical condition. In

2 attempting to explain this inconsistent evidence, Singh

3 provided various, conflicting explanations that bolstered the

4 adverse credibility determination. He first stated that he

5 did not know where he was treated, he then claimed that the

6 clinic and hospital were the same place but the name had

7 changed, and finally he stated that the clinic and hospital

8 were not the same place but next door to each other thus

9 confusing him. See

(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also

10 Majidi,

.

11 Having questioned Singh’s credibility, the agency

12 reasonably relied on his failure to rehabilitate his

13 testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. “An

14 applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may

15 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in

16 general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony

17 that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v.

18 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007). As the agency

19 noted, the country conditions evidence did not corroborate

20 that DSS uses violence to recruit Sikhs, but rather discussed

21 ongoing clashes between DSS and mainstream Sikhs over various

22 religious disagreements. And the agency did not err in

5 1 declining to afford significant weight to statements from

2 Singh’s parents, friend, and village leader because the

3 authors were not available for cross-examination and the

4 statements contain many of the same inconsistencies as

5 Singh’s testimony. See

(b)(1)(B)(iii); Y.C.

6 v. Holder,

(2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to

7 agency’s decision to afford little weight to relative’s

8 letter because it was unsworn and from an interested witness).

9 Given Singh’s inconsistent statements and lack of

10 corroboration, the agency’s adverse credibility determination

11 is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C.

12 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That determination was dispositive of

13 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all

14 three claims were based on the same factual predicate. See

15 Paul v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2006).

16 Contrary to Singh’s argument, the IJ did not violate due

17 process by questioning Singh extensively, but rather

18 fulfilled his duty to identify inconsistencies in the record

19 and provide Singh an opportunity to explain them. See Burger

20 v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2007) (“To establish

21 a violation of due process, an alien must show that []he was

22 denied a full and fair opportunity to present h[is] claims or

6 1 that [he was] otherwise deprived . . . of fundamental

2 fairness.” (quotation marks omitted)); Ming Shi Xue v. BIA,

3

(2d Cir. 2006) (“[B]ecause the alleged

4 inconsistency certainly is not self-evident, the IJ (or the

5 INS) should have brought it to the alien’s attention to ensure

6 that [petitioner] had an opportunity to explain why the

7 profile did not undercut his account.”).

8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

9 DENIED.

10 FOR THE COURT: 11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 12 Clerk of Court

7