Singh v. Garland ( 2022 )

20-910
Singh v. Garland
BIA
A201 105 356
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 10th day of June, two thousand twenty-two.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
9 MICHAEL H. PARK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SATPAL SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 20-910
17 NAC
18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Esq., Jackson
24 Heights, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: John V. Coghlan, Deputy Assistant
27 Attorney General; Stephen J.
28 Flynn, Assistant Director; Robert
29 Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney,
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 United States Department of
3 Justice, Washington, DC.
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Satpal Singh, a native and citizen of India,
9 seeks review of a February 26, 2020 decision of the BIA
10 denying his motion for reconsideration. In re Satpal Singh,
11 No. A201 105 356 (B.I.A. Feb. 26, 2020). We assume the
12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
13 history.
14 Singh moved the BIA to reconsider its prior decision
15 affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial, on
16 credibility grounds, of his petition for asylum, withholding
17 of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
18 Torture. Singh alleged that he came from Kashmir, where the
19 Taliban is active, and that members of the Taliban repeatedly
20 beat and threatened to kill him because he and other youth
21 activists participated in anti-Taliban demonstrations.
22 Because Singh’s petition is timely only as to the denial of
23 reconsideration, the sole issue before us is whether the BIA
2
1 abused its discretion by denying his motion. On such review,
2 we are “precluded from passing on the merits of the
3 underlying . . . proceedings.” Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232,
4 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
5 A motion to reconsider must “specify the errors of law
6 or fact in the previous order.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C);
7 see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of
8 Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001). We review the
9 BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of
10 discretion. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111
11 (2d Cir. 2006). The BIA abuses its discretion if its
12 “decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably
13 departs from established policies, is devoid of any
14 reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements;
15 that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or
16 capricious manner.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
17 Singh’s brief attacks the underlying adverse credibility
18 determination directly, rather than identifying error in the
19 BIA’s reasons for denying reconsideration. Accordingly, he
20 has waived review of the denial of reconsideration, which is
21 the only decision that we may review. See Likai Gao v. Barr,
3
1 968 F.3d 137, 149 & n.12 (2d Cir. 2020) (issues not
2 meaningfully argued in briefs are abandoned); Yueqing Zhang
3 v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) (same);
4 Kaur, 413 F.3d at 233–34.
5 Even if Singh had raised arguments relevant to the BIA’s
6 stated reasons for denying reconsideration, we would find no
7 abuse of discretion in the BIA’s decision. In his motion,
8 Singh asserted two bases for reconsideration: (1) that the
9 discrepancy between his written statement and hearing
10 testimony regarding the frequency of the beatings he
11 experienced was “of less than substantial importance” and did
12 not discredit his overall claim that he was attacked; and
13 (2) that his medical reports corroborated his testimony that
14 he was attacked, and the IJ’s concerns about reliability of
15 the reports were misplaced. As the BIA observed,
16 inconsistencies between statements provide a proper basis for
17 an adverse credibility determination, particularly where they
18 relate to the alleged persecution. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
20 446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006).
21 Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion with
4
1 respect to the medical reports because an IJ has discretion
2 regarding the weight to give documentary evidence and, here,
3 the IJ identified issues with the report summarizing Singh’s
4 medical treatment that undermined its reliability. These
5 issues included the absence of authentication, the fact that
6 the report was created more than seven years after the
7 treatment, and the use of identical language in that report
8 and another report about treatment his parents received years
9 later. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013)
10 (“We defer to the agency’s determination of the weight
11 afforded to an alien's documentary evidence.”); Mei Chai Ye
12 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007)
13 (observing that “striking similarities between affidavits are
14 an indication that the statements are ‘canned’”).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
17 stays VACATED.
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
20 Clerk of Court
5