Singh v. Lynch ( 2016 )

15-1107
Singh v. Lynch
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A200 812 419
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 20th day of September, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JASPREET SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-1107
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, New York,
24 New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; Mary
28 Jane Candaux, Assistant Director;
29 Michael C. Heyse, Trial Attorney,
30 Office of Immigration Litigation,
31 United States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
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 Jaspreet Singh, a native and citizen of India,
6 seeks review of a March 11, 2015 decision of the BIA, affirming
7 a November 14, 2012 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
8 denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal,
9 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
10 re Jaspreet Singh, No. A200 812 419 (B.I.A. Mar. 11, 2015), aff’g
11 No. A200 812 419 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 14, 2012). We assume
12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both the
15 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
18 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
19 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
20 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
21 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies
22 in an asylum applicant’s statements and other record evidence
2
1 “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the
2 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
3 Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the
4 agency’s adverse credibility determination, which was
5 primarily based on inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony
6 and his earlier sworn statements to an asylum officer during
7 a credible fear interview.
8 As an initial matter, the agency reasonably found the
9 record of Singh’s credible fear interview reliable. See Ming
10 Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 725 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Where the
11 record of a credible fear interview displays the hallmarks of
12 reliability, it appropriately can be considered in assessing
13 an alien’s credibility.”). During the interview, Singh was
14 provided an interpreter. An asylum officer memorialized the
15 interview in typewritten question and answer format. And the
16 answers recorded demonstrate that Singh understood the
17 questions posed.
18 The inconsistencies between Singh’s credible fear
19 interview and hearing testimony provide substantial support for
20 the adverse credibility determination. Singh’s testimony
21 conflicted with his statements during his credible fear
22 interview regarding whether (1) members of the Shiromani Akali
3
1 Dal Party or the Congress Party attacked him in India, (2) he
2 was beaten or escaped being beaten during a January 2010
3 incident, (3) his brother was severely attacked and
4 hospitalized or never harmed, and (4) he feared living in the
5 Punjab or all of India. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67.
6 The IJ reasonably concluded that Singh’s nervousness during his
7 credible fear interview did not provide a compelling
8 explanation for his numerous inconsistent sworn statements.
9 See Ming Zhang, 585 F.3d at 722; see also Majidi v. Gonzales,
10 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).
11 Having questioned Singh’s credibility, the IJ reasonably
12 relied further on Singh’s failure to provide certain
13 corroborating evidence that might rehabilitate his testimony.
14 See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
15 Nor did the IJ abuse his discretion in denying Singh’s request
16 for a continuance to obtain corroborating statements from his
17 mother and brother because Singh had more than two years to
18 obtain such statements and he already had received and submitted
19 documentary evidence obtained and mailed by his brother. See
20 Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551-52 (2d Cir. 2006); see
21 also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167-68.
22 These inconsistencies and lack of corroboration constitute
4
1 substantial evidence supporting the agency’s adverse
2 credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
3 see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-68. That determination
4 is dispositive of Singh’s claims for asylum, withholding of
5 removal, and CAT relief, because all three claims are based on
6 the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
7 156-57 (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