Singh v. Lynch , 640 F. App'x 73 ( 2016 )

14-3073
Singh v. Lynch
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A087 997 016
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 25th day of February, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SUKHWINDER SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-3073
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights,
24 New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; Terri J.
28 Scadron, Assistant Director; Manuel
1 A. Palau, Trial Attorney, Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
9 DENIED.
10 Petitioner Sukhwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India,
11 seeks review of a July 25, 2014 decision of the BIA, affirming
12 an October 17, 2012 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
13 denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal,
14 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
15 re Sukhwinder Singh, No. A087 997 016 (B.I.A. July 25, 2014),
16 aff’g No. A087 997 016 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 17, 2012).
17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
18 and procedural history in this case.
19 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for
20 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
21 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable
22 standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C.
23 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66
2
1 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may base a credibility finding on
2 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other
3 record evidence “without regard to whether [they go] to the
4 heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
6 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
7 Singh was not credible.
8 The agency reasonably relied on discrepancies between
9 Singh’s testimony and his earlier sworn statements during a
10 credible fear interview. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67.
11 As an initial matter, the agency did not err in finding the
12 record of Singh’s interview to be reliable. Singh did not
13 object to its contents. And the interview was conducted with
14 an interpreter, the record of the interview was typewritten in
15 question and answer format, and Singh’s responses did not
16 indicate that he was reluctant to answer questions. See Ming
17 Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009).
18 At his credible fear interview, Singh claimed that Hindus
19 attacked him on account of his Sikh faith. His asylum
20 application and his later testimony, however, differed
21 materially: in the latter, he claimed that the attacks he
3
1 suffered were political, not religious, in nature. See Yun-Zui
2 Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 398-99 (2d Cir. 2005); see also
3 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3. Singh’s explanation that “in
4 [his] mind . . ., Hindu people [are] equal to Congress Party”
5 was not compelling because he later admitted that he knew that
6 the Prime Minister of India at the time was a member of the
7 Congress Party and also a Sikh. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
8 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). Moreover, as the IJ found, Singh’s
9 explanation negatively affected his credibility because it
10 demonstrated a lack of political knowledge that undercut his
11 claim that he had been active in politics since 2003. See Rizal
12 v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing that
13 there may be “instances in which the nature of an individual
14 applicant’s account would render his lack of a certain degree
15 of doctrinal knowledge suspect and could therefore provide
16 substantial evidence in support of an adverse credibility
17 finding”).
18 In its finding, the agency also reasonably relied on
19 adverse inferences created by the striking similarities in four
20 affidavits Singh submitted. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of
21 Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007); Surinder Singh v.
4
1 BIA, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006). Singh submitted
2 affidavits from his father, his wife, his village’s president,
3 and his best friend, each of which provided the same
4 information, set out in the same order, and used strikingly
5 similar language. As required, Singh was given an opportunity
6 to explain these similarities, see Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I. &
7 N. Dec. 658, 661 (BIA 2015), but his explanation that the
8 similarities were not surprising because the affiants all knew
9 what had happened was not compelling, see Majidi, 430 F.3d at
10 80.
11 Finally, the agency reasonably relied on similarities
12 between Singh’s hospital records as undermining his
13 credibility. See Mei Chai Ye, 489 F.3d at 524. Singh first
14 testified that the two records he submitted described treatment
15 for different incidents (an illness and an attack), and then
16 stated that one document was a copy of the other. Both of
17 Singh’s statements were contradicted by the documents
18 themselves. Neither described treatment for an illness, as he
19 first asserted. And, although very similar, the documents were
20 not identical: one was not a copy of the other.
21 Given the discrepancies between the statements made by
5
1 Singh in his credible fear interview and in his asylum
2 application, and the striking similarities in the claimed
3 corroborating affidavits and hospital records, we conclude that
4 substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
5 determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. That
6 determination is dispositive of Singh’s claims for asylum,
7 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales,
8 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
11 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
12 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
13 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
14 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
15 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule
16 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6