19-2009 Singh v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A205 422 199 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 16th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SIMRANJIT SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2009 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Law Office of 24 Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Jennifer P. Levings, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel; Kristin 1 Moresi, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

7 AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of

8 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Simranjit Singh, a native and citizen of

10 India, seeks review of a June 7, 2019 decision of the BIA

11 affirming a January 11, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge

12 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of

13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

14 (“CAT”). In re Simranjit Singh, No. A205 422 199 (B.I.A.

15 Jun. 7, 2019), aff’g No. A205 422 199 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Jan.

16 11, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

17 underlying facts and procedural history.

18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the

19 BIA, reaching only the BIA’s reliance on the IJ’s adverse

20 credibility determination. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t

21 of Justice,

(2d Cir. 2005); see also Lin

22 Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d Cir.

23 2007). The applicable standards of review are well

24 established. See

(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v.

25 Sessions,

(2d Cir. 2018).

2 1 Singh failed to exhaust his current challenge to the IJ’s

2 adverse credibility determination because he did not raise

3 the challenge before the BIA. While not jurisdictional, issue

4 exhaustion is mandatory when the Government raises it, as it

5 has here. See Lin Zhong,

n.1.

6 Moreover, in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility

7 determination, the BIA concluded generally that there was no

8 clear error, but did not address individual findings. See

9 Lin Zhong,

n.1, 122. Singh has not identified

10 any reason to excuse his failure to exhaust.

11 Because Singh’s claims were all based on the same factual

12 predicate, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is

13 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

14 relief, see Paul v. Gonzales,

(2d Cir.

15 2006), and his failure to exhaust is therefore fatal to his

16 petition for review.

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

18 DENIED.

19 FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 21 Clerk of Court

3