Singh v. Holder , 517 F. App'x 18 ( 2013 )

12-912
Singh v. Holder
BIA
Morace, IJ
A088 017 706
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 United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 2nd day of April, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 Juzar Singh,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-912
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Jennifer Paisner-
28 Williams, Senior Litigation Counsel;
29 Jesse M. Bless, Trial Attorney,
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 United States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
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
8 is DENIED.
9 Juzar Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks
10 review of a February 8, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming
11 the July 13, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
12 Philip L. Morace, denying his application for asylum,
13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Juzar Singh, No. A088 017
15 706 (B.I.A. Feb. 8, 2012), aff’g No. A088 017 706 (Immig.
16 Ct. N.Y. City July 13, 2010). We assume the parties’
17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
18 in this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
20 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
21 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
22 2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
23 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
24 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
2
1 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). For asylum
2 applications governed by the REAL ID Act, such as the
3 application in this case, the agency may, considering the
4 totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on
5 an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his
6 account, and inconsistencies in his statements, without
7 regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s
8 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Substantial
9 evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
10 determination and that determination formed an adequate
11 basis for denying relief.
12 In finding Singh not credible, the agency reasonably
13 relied on several discrepancies in the record. See Xiu Xia
14 Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. First, as the agency noted, Singh
15 initially told border crossing officials that he had come to
16 the United States to work, that he had never been arrested
17 in India, and that he had no reason to fear returning, yet
18 he subsequently applied for asylum, claiming past
19 persecution and a fear of future harm in India on account of
20 his religion and his political associations. As required,
21 the agency considered Singh’s explanation that he was afraid
22 during his initial encounter with immigration officials, see
3
1 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 179 (2d Cir. 2004),
2 but nevertheless reasonably relied to some extent on this
3 discrepancy because the totality of the circumstances
4 demonstrated that Singh was not credible, particularly in
5 light of numerous other inconsistencies in the record. See
6 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
7 As the agency noted, Singh’s testimony at trial
8 differed from the statements he made during his credible
9 fear interview with respect to the duration of his three
10 detentions, the harm suffered during each detention, and the
11 medical treatment received following the detentions.
12 Moreover, Singh’s credible fear interview bore the
13 “hallmarks of reliability,” see Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d
14 715, 725 (2d Cir. 2009), and a reasonable factfinder would
15 not be compelled to credit Singh’s explanations for these
16 inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81
17 (2d Cir. 2005).
18 Having questioned Singh’s credibility, the agency did
19 not err in finding that he failed to present sufficient
20 evidence to rehabilitate his testimony. Biao Yang v.
21 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
22 Indeed, as the agency found, although Singh had over two
4
1 years to produce corroborating witnesses, he failed to do so
2 at the time of trial. Furthermore, the record does not
3 compellingly suggest that the IJ failed to adequately
4 consider any material evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.
5 Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006).
6 Ultimately, because a reasonable fact-finder would not
7 be compelled to conclude to the contrary, the agency’s
8 adverse credibility determination was supported by
9 substantial evidence. The adverse credibility determination
10 is dispositive of Singh’s claims for asylum, withholding of
11 removal, and CAT relief, as those claims were based on the
12 same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
13 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
16 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
17 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
18 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
19 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
21 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5