20-1856 Singh v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A208 179 248

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 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 15th day of September, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 HARDEEP SINGH, AKA RANA GURANG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1856 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Richard W. Chen, Esq., New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; 1 Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 2 Director; Colette J. Winston, 3 Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

11 is DENIED.

12 Petitioner Hardeep Singh, a native and citizen of India,

13 seeks review of a May 20, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming

14 a March 22, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”),

15 which denied Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of

16 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

17 (“CAT”). In re Hardeep Singh, No. A208 179 248 (B.I.A. May

18 20, 2020), aff’g No. A208 179 248 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar.

19 22, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

20 underlying facts and procedural history.

21 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s

22 and the BIA’s opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland

23 Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2006). We review the

24 agency’s adverse credibility determination for substantial

25 evidence, see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions,

(2d

26 Cir. 2018), and “the administrative findings of fact are

2 1 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

2 compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C.

3 § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Considering the totality of the

4 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may

5 base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency

6 between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral

7 statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such

8 statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with

9 other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an

10 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of

11 the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.”

12

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

13 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the

14 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder

15 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin

16 v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei

17 Gao,

.

18 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination

19 that Singh was not credible as to his claim that members of

20 the Bharatiya Janata Party twice beat him for refusing to

21 leave the Congress Party and join them. The agency

22 reasonably relied on inconsistencies between Singh’s evidence

3 1 regarding (1) whether he was alone when attacked in December

2 2014 or whether his father was also attacked and injured, (2)

3 whether he was unconscious for days after a second attack,

4 (3) who took him to a medical clinic, and (4) whether he

5 reported the second attack to police. See 8 U.S.C.

6 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). He failed to provide compelling

7 explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi v.

8 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must

9 do more than offer a plausible explanation for his

10 inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate

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

12 his testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

13 The agency also reasonably relied on Singh’s failure to

14 rehabilitate his testimony with reliable corroborating

15 evidence. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,

(2d

16 Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her

17 testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of

18 corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to

19 rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into

20 question.”). The agency reasonably declined to credit his

21 supporting affidavits because, in addition to the

22 inconsistent statements in them, the authors were not

4 1 available for cross-examination. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741

2

(2d Cir. 2013) (holding that “[w]e

3 generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to

4 be afforded an applicant’s documentary evidence” and

5 upholding BIA’s decision not to credit letter from

6 applicant’s spouse). The agency also did not err in

7 declining to credit a handwritten letter purportedly from

8 Singh’s doctor because the doctor misspelled the word

9 medicine and stated that he was not available for

10 communication regarding the statement.

11 The multiple inconsistencies and lack of corroboration

12 constitute substantial evidence for the adverse credibility

13 determination. See Likai Gao v. Barr,

, 145 n.8

14 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude

15 an alien from showing that an IJ was compelled to find him

16 credible. Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even

17 more forcefully.”); Biao Yang,

. The adverse

18 credibility determination is dispositive of asylum,

19 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three

20 claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v.

21 Gonzales,

, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).

22 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

5 1 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

2 stays VACATED.

3 FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 5 Clerk of Court 6

6