Singh v. Sessions ( 2018 )

16-3857
Singh v. Sessions
BIA
Hom, IJ
A205 409 269
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 27th day of July, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 BACHITTER SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-3857
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Leslie McKay,
27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Margot L.
28 Carter, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, DC.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Bachitter Singh, a native and citizen of India,
6 seeks review of an October 14, 2016, decision of the BIA
7 affirming a March 17, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of
9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Bachitter Singh, No. A 205 409 269 (B.I.A. Oct.
11 14, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 409 269 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City March
12 17, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
15 the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales,
16 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are
17 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin
18 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
19 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
20 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on
21 inconsistencies or omissions in an applicant’s oral and written
2
1 statements and other record evidence. 8 U.S.C.
2 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166-67.
3 “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless .
4 . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such
5 an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
6 The adverse credibility determination is supported by
7 substantial evidence.
8 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between
9 Singh’s testimony and his medical records. Singh’s sole
10 allegation of past persecution was that he was hospitalized on
11 account of being beaten by members of a rival political party.
12 He testified to the name of the hospital where he was treated
13 and the doctor who treated him, but the medical record he
14 submitted was from a different hospital and written by a
15 different doctor. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. When asked
16 to explain this discrepancy, Singh speculated that the hospital
17 may have changed owners and thus the letter was prepared by a
18 new doctor. This explanation was not compelling because the
19 record reflected that it was authored by a doctor who personally
20 examined Singh. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d
21 Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible
3
1 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief;
2 he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be
3 compelled to credit his testimony.” (quotation marks and
4 citation omitted)). These inconsistencies regarding the
5 hospital and doctor both relate to the sole incident of alleged
6 persecution and call into question the validity of Singh’s
7 documentary evidence, therefore undermining his credibility as
8 a whole. Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007)
9 (“[A] single false document or a single instance of false
10 testimony may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the
11 balance of the alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated
12 evidence.”).
13 Singh also argues that the IJ erred in declining to credit
14 other documentary evidence. The IJ did abuse his discretion
15 because Singh’s evidence was filed late, the medical record was
16 inconsistent with his testimony, and the additional evidence
17 did not confirm his beating or hospitalization. See Xiao Ji
18 Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006);
19 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c). This failure to corroborate bolstered
20 the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Biao Yang v.
21 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
4
1 As discussed above, the inconsistencies fully undermine
2 Singh’s credibility and provide substantial evidence for the
3 adverse credibility determination. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
4 167. The adverse credibility determination was dispositive
5 because asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief were all
6 based on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
7 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
10 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
11 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
12 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
13 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
14 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
15 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5