Singh v. Sessions ( 2018 )

16-2989
Singh v. Sessions
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A205 263 120
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 22nd day of February, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 GOURPREET SINGH, AKA GURPREET
14 SINGH,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 16-2989
18 NAC
19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Keith I. McManus,
28 Assistant Director; Maarja T.
29 Luhtaru, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 Gourpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India,
6 seeks review of a July 28, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming
7 an October 19, 2015, 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 Gourpreet Singh, No. A205 263 120 (B.I.A. July 28, 2016),
11 aff’g No. A205 263 120 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 19, 2015).
12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
13 and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
15 the 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. Mukasey,
19 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
20 Considering the totality of the
21 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a
22 trier of fact may base a credibility
23 determination on . . . the consistency
24 between the applicant’s . . . written and
25 oral statements . . . , the internal
2
1 consistency of each such statement, [and]
2 the consistency of such statements with
3 other evidence of record . . . without
4 regard to whether an inconsistency,
5 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart
6 of the applicant’s claim.
7
8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
9 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
10 Singh was not credible as to his claim that Congress Party
11 members attacked him on account of his membership in the
12 Shiromani Akali Dal Mann Party.
13 The agency reasonably relied on record inconsistencies
14 regarding who prepared a supporting letter from Singh’s
15 political party, how he obtained that letter, whether he told
16 his party about being attacked by Congress Party members, and
17 whether police raided his home and harassed his family members.
18 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at19 165-67. Singh did not provide compelling explanations for
20 these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77,
21 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a
22 plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure
23 relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would
24 be compelled to credit his testimony.”) (internal quotation
25 marks omitted).
3
1 Given the inconsistency findings relating directly to the
2 past harm, continued interest of the Congress Party, and the
3 validity of the evidence, the agency’s adverse credibility
4 determination is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That determination is dispositive of
6 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three
7 claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v.
8 Gonzales, 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
4