Singh v. Sessions ( 2017 )

15-3798
Singh v. Sessions
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A201 273 523
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 24th day of February, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
10 DENNY CHIN,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 KULDIP SINGH,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 15-3798
18 NAC
19 JEFF SESSIONS, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.*
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, New
25 York, N.Y.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
28 Assistant Attorney General, Civil
29 Division; Anthony C. Payne,
30 Assistant Director; Janette L.
31 Allen, Senior Litigation Counsel,
* Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) Attorney General Jeff Sessions is substituted for former Attorney General Loretta
E. Lynch, as respondent.
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 Department of Justice, Washington,
3 DC.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
8 DENIED.
9 Petitioner Kuldip Singh, a native and citizen of India,
10 seeks review of an October 26, 2015, decision of the BIA
11 affirming a December 3, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge
12 (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of
13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Kuldip Singh, No. A201 273 523 (B.I.A. Oct. 26,
15 2015), aff’g No. A201 273 523 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 3,
16 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
17 facts and procedural history in this case.
18 Rather than file a brief, the Government has moved for
19 summary denial. Because summary denial is reserved for
20 frivolous cases, see United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 10, 13-14
21 (2d Cir. 2010), we deny the motion because we find Singh’s
22 arguments not frivolous. Nonetheless, considering the
23 Government’s motion as its brief, we have reviewed the petition
24 on the merits and, as discussed below, conclude that the IJ's
25 adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
26 evidence.
2
1 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the
2 IJ’s and the BIA’s decision “for the sake of completeness.”
3 Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The
4 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8
5 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
6 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
7 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
8 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on
9 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other
10 record evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin,
11 534 F.3d at 163-64. “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility
12 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,
13 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an
14 adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
15 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between
16 Singh’s testimony and other evidence of record. See 8 U.S.C.
17 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). First, there were inconsistencies
18 between a letter Singh submitted from his political party and
19 his application and testimony. The letter reported that Singh
20 had been persecuted by the Punjab police, but Singh did not
21 include that fact in his application and denied it during his
22 testimony. The IJ was not required to credit Singh’s
23 explanations because they did not resolve the inconsistencies.
24 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
3
1 Second, as the IJ found, the record reflects several
2 inconsistencies and omissions regarding Singh’s alleged
3 beating in June 2010. A letter from Singh’s uncle stated that
4 he witnessed Singh’s June 2010 attack, but Singh testified
5 otherwise. Singh’s written statement and letters from his
6 family omitted the assertion he was hospitalized for ten days
7 following that attack, while he testified to that fact and
8 submitted a medical document to support his testimony. Singh’s
9 application stated that party and family members filed a police
10 report after the June 2010 attack, but neither the party letter
11 nor the letter from Singh’s father mentioned any such report.
12 The agency also reasonably found that Singh’s medical
13 documentation was of questionable value given an internal
14 inconsistency in the letter. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167
15 (holding that “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission
16 in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the
17 ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes that an asylum
18 applicant is not credible” (quoting 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii))).
20 Third and finally, it was reasonable for the agency to find
21 that Singh’s inaccurate testimony as to the political situation
22 in India supported an adverse credibility finding. Cf. Rizal
23 v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 90–91 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that
24 lack of doctrinal knowledge may undermine credibility when
4
1 petitioner has testified to facts that support a conclusion that
2 he should have such knowledge). Despite claiming to be an
3 active member of a political party, Singh misidentified the
4 leader of a political party that he claimed to fear. Given that
5 Singh’s claim was based on harm stemming from his political
6 activities, it was reasonable for the agency to rely on his lack
7 of knowledge of basic political facts.
8 Given the multiple discrepancies that called both the
9 testimony and corroborating evidence into question, the agency
10 reasonably concluded that Singh was not credible. See 8 U.S.C.
11 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The adverse
12 credibility determination is dispositive of asylum,
13 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all of the claims
14 are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
15 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
16 For the foregoing reasons, Respondent’s motion for summary
17 denial is DENIED, but construing the motion as Respondent’s
18 brief, the petition for review is DENIED on the merits. As we
19 have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court
20 previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending
21 motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.
22
23
24
5
1 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED
2 in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
3 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6