Singh v. Lynch

14-2384
Singh v. Lynch
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A200 597 159
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 15th day of July, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ASHWINDER SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-2384
17 NAC
18
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Law Office of
25 Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, New
26 York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
29 Assistant Attorney General; Stephen
1 J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Arthur
2 L. Rabin, Trial Attorney, Office of
3 Immigration Litigation, United
4 States Department of Justice,
5 Washington, D.C.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
10 DENIED.
11 Petitioner Ashwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India,
12 seeks review of a June 4, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming
13 a July 31, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying
14 Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
15 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
16 Ashwinder Singh, No. A200 597 159 (B.I.A. June 4, 2014), aff’g
17 No. A200 597 159 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 31, 2012). We assume
18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
19 procedural history in this case.
20 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for
21 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528
22 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
24 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
2
1 For asylum applications like Singh’s, governed by the REAL
2 ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
3 circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on the
4 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or
5 witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or
6 witness’s account,” and inconsistencies in an applicant’s
7 statements and other record evidence “without regard to
8 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
9 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
10 Here, under “the totality of the circumstances,” the IJ’s
11 adverse credibility determination is based on substantial
12 evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
13 Singh sought asylum and related relief based on his claim
14 that several of his family members, including Singh himself,
15 were threatened, beaten, and even killed based on their
16 affiliation with the Shiromani Alkali Dal Amritsar (“SAD”), a
17 Sikh political party. Singh testified that two Congress Party
18 members and two police officers came to his home, beat him, and
19 accused him of being a militant on behalf of SAD. However,
20 Singh’s written statement in support of his asylum application
21 does not mention that police were present on that date. This
3
1 inconsistency is supported by the record. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d
2 at 163-64.
3 The IJ also relied on a discrepancy between Singh’s
4 testimony and a letter from his doctor. Singh testified that
5 he was assaulted by Congress Party members and police on October
6 3, 2009, and that he sought medical treatment on that same day.
7 He submitted a letter from his doctor, stating that he was
8 treated on October 3, 2010—when Singh was already in the United
9 States. Singh explained that the doctor simply made a mistake
10 and that he meant to write 2009, not 2010. After the hearing,
11 Singh submitted an updated letter with the date changed to 2009
12 and a statement from the doctor explaining the mistake. The
13 IJ declined to accept this explanation because Singh only
14 amended the note after the inconsistency had been pointed out
15 to him at his merits hearing. The IJ’s finding is supported
16 by the record. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Moreover, the
17 IJ was not required to accept Singh’s updated letter. Majidi
18 v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
19 The IJ relied on an additional discrepancy between Singh’s
20 testimony and his uncle’s death certificate. According to
21 Singh, his uncle died in June 2009, but Singh stated that he
4
1 had never seen the death certificate, which is dated 2010 and
2 is unauthenticated. The IJ reasoned that Singh’s
3 unfamiliarity with the document diminished his credibility.
4 This finding is questionable: the IJ did not explain how the
5 irregularities in the death certificate bear on Singh’s
6 credibility, and the record contains no information about the
7 conditions under which death certificates are issued in India.
8 See Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 405 (2d
9 Cir. 2005) (holding that it was improper speculation to rely
10 on assumptions about foreign practices with no evidence of those
11 practices). Nonetheless, the IJ was entitled to rely on the
12 fact that Singh had never seen the death certificate for his
13 own relative submitted in his own case, as this does cast doubt
14 on Singh’s credibility. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64
15 (holding that IJ may rely on any inconsistency, however minor).
16 Under the REAL ID Act, the IJ is entitled to rely on
17 inconsistencies that do not go to the “heart” of the claim. 8
18 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). And here, the IJ reasonably
19 relied on the cumulative impact of the three discrepancies. Tu
20 Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly,
21 the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by
5
1 substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). This
2 finding was sufficient to deny asylum, withholding of removal,
3 and CAT relief, as all three claims were based on the same
4 factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d
5 Cir. 2006) (withholding); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of
6 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAT).
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
9 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
10 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
11 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
12 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
13 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
14 34.1(b).
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6