19-2139 Singh v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A208 617 694 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 5th day of October, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 GURPAL SINGH, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-2139 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Esq., 25 Hempstead, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony C. 1 Payne, Assistant Director; Neelam 2 Ihsanullah, Trial Attorney, Office 3 of Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, 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 Gurpal Singh, a native and citizen of India,

11 seeks review of a June 18, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming

12 a January 17, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”),

13 which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under

14 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gurpal Singh,

15 No. A208 617 694 (B.I.A. June 18, 2019), aff’g No. A208 617

16 694 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Jan. 17, 2018). We assume the

17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

18 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 Just.,

,

21 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales,

, 271

22 (2d Cir. 2005). We review an adverse credibility

23 determination for substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C.

24 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions,

, 76 2 1 (2d Cir. 2018).

2 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all

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

4 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of

5 the applicant . . . , the inherent plausibility of the

6 applicant’s . . . account, the consistency between the

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

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

9 consistency of such statements with other evidence of

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

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

12 claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C.

13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s

14 credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no

15 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility

16 ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir.

17 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao,

. Substantial

18 evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh was not

19 credible as to his claim that he was attacked by members of

20 rival political parties.

21 Singh argues that, in making its adverse credibility

3 1 determination, the agency erred in relying on third-party

2 omissions relating to his grandfather’s involvement in the

3 political party that Singh claimed to support. See Hong Fei

4 Gao,

(“[W]here a third party’s omission creates

5 no inconsistency with an applicant’s own statements—an

6 applicant’s failure to explain third-party omissions is less

7 probative of credibility . . . .”). However, even assuming

8 arguendo that the agency placed undue weight on those third-

9 party omissions, the other findings provide sufficient

10 support for the adverse credibility determination. See Singh

11 v. Garland, No. 17-2368, --- F.4th ---,

, *4–

12 8 (2d Cir. 2021) (“Where . . . an IJ relies on multiple bases,

13 some of which are erroneous and the remainder of which are,

14 when viewed together, legally sufficient to satisfy the

15 substantial evidence requirement . . . [we] might simply

16 affirm the ruling based on confidence that the agency would

17 adhere to the adverse credibility finding notwithstanding

18 disqualification of some of its asserted bases.”).

19 The record supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh

20 was inconsistent and unclear about who attacked him and which

21 political party he fears in India. This inconsistency

4 1 provides substantial evidence for the adverse credibility

2 determination. See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

3

(2d Cir. 2006) (concluding that a “material

4 inconsistency in an aspect of [the] story that served as an

5 example of the very persecution from which [Petitioner]

6 sought asylum . . . afforded substantial evidence to support

7 the adverse credibility finding” (internal quotation marks

8 and citation omitted)). The adverse credibility

9 determination is bolstered by the IJ’s finding that Singh was

10 evasive and nonresponsive even in response to questioning by

11 his own attorney. See Likai Gao v. Barr,

, 150

12 (2d Cir. 2020). Singh’s argument related to the remainder

13 of the demeanor finding is misplaced because the BIA

14 explicitly did not rely on the contested portions of the IJ’s

15 decision. See Xue Hong Yang,

. Finally,

16 Singh has waived any challenge to the agency’s determination

17 that he failed to rehabilitate his testimony with

18 corroborating evidence. See Norton v. Sam’s Club,

(2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in

20 the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be

21 addressed on appeal.”).

5 1 In sum, the inconsistency regarding which party attacked

2 Singh and which party he fears provides substantial evidence

3 for the adverse credibility determination, which is bolstered

4 by the IJ’s demeanor and corroboration findings. See Xiu Xia

5 Lin, 534 F.3d at 167–68. The adverse credibility

6 determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of

7 removal, and CAT relief because all three forms of relief

8 rely on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,

9

, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).

10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

11 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

12 stays VACATED.

13 FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 15 Clerk of Court

6