Singh-Bassi v. Garland ( 2021 )

19-2878
Singh-Bassi v. Garland
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A208 563 304
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 4th day of May, two thousand twenty-one.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 MICHAEL H. PARK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JAGDEEP SINGH-BASSI, AKA JAGDEEP
14 SINGH, AKA SOHNA THAPA, AKA SONU
15 SINGH,
16 Petitioner,
17
18 v. 19-2878
19 NAC
20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.*
23 _____________________________________
24
25
26 FOR PETITIONER: Mike Singh Sethi, Sethi Law
27 Group, Orange, CA.
28
* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
2 Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez
3 Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel;
4 Christopher Buchanan, Trial
5 Attorney, Office of Immigration
6 Litigation, United States
7 Department of Justice, Washington,
8 DC.
9
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
13 is DENIED.
14 Petitioner Jagdeep Singh-Bassi, a native and citizen of
15 India, seeks review of an August 14, 2019, decision of the
16 BIA affirming a February 5, 2018, decision of an Immigration
17 Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh-Bassi’s application for asylum,
18 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
19 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jagdeep Singh-Bassi, No. A208
20 563 304 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2019), aff’g No. A208 563 304 (Immig.
21 Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 5, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity
22 with the underlying facts and procedural history.
23 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s
24 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
25 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d
26 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
2
1 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v.
2 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).
3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
4 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
5 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s
6 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal
7 consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of
8 such statements with other evidence of record . . . without
9 regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood
10 goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other
11 relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer
12 . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the
13 totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable
14 fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.”
15 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008);
16 accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence
17 supports the agency’s determination that Singh-Bassi was not
18 credible as to his claim that members of the Akali Dal Badal
19 Party (“Badal Party”) twice attacked him in India on account
20 of his work for a rival party, the Shiromani Akali Dal
21 (Amritsar) Party headed by Simranjit Singh Mann (“Mann
22 Party”).
3
1 The agency reasonably relied on Singh-Bassi’s
2 inconsistent evidence regarding when and how many people
3 attacked him, where he received medical treatment, whether he
4 reported his second attack to police, and whether Badal
5 members continued to visit his home after he left India. See
6 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Likai Gao v. Barr,
7 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single
8 inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ
9 was compelled to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies
10 would so preclude even more forcefully.”). Singh-Bassi did
11 not compellingly explain any of these inconsistencies. See
12 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A
13 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation
14 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
15 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled
16 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks
17 omitted)).
18 The agency also reasonably found Singh-Bassi’s
19 credibility impugned by his submission of affidavits
20 allegedly prepared by his father, his uncle, and a village
21 official that contained strikingly similar language. See Mei
22 Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir.
4
1 2007) (“[T]his court has . . . firmly embraced the
2 commonsensical notion that striking similarities between
3 affidavits are an indication that the statements are canned.”
4 (internal quotation marks omitted)). The agency also
5 reasonably relied on Singh-Bassi’s unawareness of Khalistan,
6 which is a hypothetical independent Sikh state that is a
7 central goal of the Mann Party and which was mentioned
8 throughout his supporting documents. See Rizal v. Gonzales,
9 442 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing that there are
10 circumstances when “the nature of an individual applicant’s
11 account would render his lack of a certain degree of doctrinal
12 knowledge suspect and could therefore provide substantial
13 evidence in support of an adverse credibility finding”).
14 Having questioned Singh-Bassi’s credibility, the agency
15 reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate his
16 testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. See Biao
17 Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An
18 applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may
19 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in
20 general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony
21 that has already been called into question.”). Other than
22 the affidavits and doctor’s certificate that the agency
5
1 reasonably declined to credit due to striking similarities
2 and inconsistencies, Singh-Bassi submitted a letter from the
3 Mann Party and country conditions evidence, none of which
4 corroborated his alleged attacks.
5 Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings, the
6 agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
7 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
8 That determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of
9 removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based
10 on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
11 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
14 stays VACATED.
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
17 Clerk of Court
6