Gurpreet Singh v. Lynch

14-2129
Singh v. Lynch
BIA
Segal, IJ
A200 892 517
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 17th day of June, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 GURPREET SINGH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-2129
17 NAC
18
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24
25
26 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, New
27 York, NY.
28
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin Mizer, Acting Assistant
2 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad,
3 Assistant Director; Jennifer R.
4 Khouri, Trial Attorney, Office of
5 Immigration Litigation, United States
6 Department of Justice, Washington D.C.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
11 DENIED.
12 Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review
13 of a June 11, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming the January
14 14, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his
15 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
16 pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
17 Gurpreet Singh, No. A200 892 517 (B.I.A. June 11, 2014), aff’g
18 No. A200 892 517 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 14, 2013). We assume
19 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
20 procedural history in this case.
21 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the
22 decisions of both the IJ and the BIA “for the sake of
23 completeness.” See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426
24 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of
2
1 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
2 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 For asylum applications like Singh’s, governed by the REAL
4 ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of
5 the circumstances,” base a credibility determination on
6 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other
7 record evidence “without regard to whether” the inconsistencies
8 go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility
10 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,
11 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such” a
12 ruling. Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008)
13 (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
14 adverse credibility determination.
15 The agency reasonably relied on multiple inconsistencies
16 in finding Singh not credible. For example, Singh repeatedly
17 testified that his father was a member of Akali Dal, and multiple
18 supporting affidavits also described his father as a member of
19 that party. However, when Singh was asked for documentary
20 evidence of his father’s membership in Akali Dal, he asserted
21 that his father was not a member but only worked or volunteered
3
1 for the party. The agency was not compelled to credit Singh’s
2 explanation for this inconsistency. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
3 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
4 In addition, Singh failed to mention in his asylum
5 application that his hair was cut when he was attacked. Xiu
6 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3. In the application, Singh
7 described in detail his attack and the resulting injuries.
8 However, he testified before the IJ that his hair was cut when
9 he was attacked, which he considered humiliating and insulting
10 to his religion, which requires long hair. The agency was not
11 required to credit Singh’s explanation for this omission from
12 his asylum application, which was highly relevant to whether
13 Singh was attacked on account of his identity as a Sikh. See
14 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81. Finally, Singh’s testimony and an
15 affidavit from a village leader differed regarding whether the
16 leader accompanied Singh to report an incident to the police.
17 Given the material inconsistencies, substantial evidence
18 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See
19 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
20 Singh argues that the agency erroneously failed to make a
21 distinct credibility finding with respect to CAT relief. A
4
1 finding that the petitioner is not credible as to his or her
2 subjective fear of persecution will not necessarily preclude
3 a grant of withholding of removal or CAT relief if the IJ
4 believed some aspect of the petitioner’s claim. See Paul v.
5 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-157 (2d Cir. 2006) (remanding for
6 the agency to consider the risk of future persecution where the
7 IJ found not credible the alien’s claim of past persecution but
8 nonetheless credited his testimony that he was a Christian);
9 cf. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 184-185 (2d Cir.
10 2004)(applying this principle to a CAT claim). Here, However,
11 Singh cannot rely on evidence that the government mistreats Sikh
12 radicals, such as those involved in Akali Dal, because the
13 agency did not credit his assertion that he and his father were
14 indeed Sikh radicals. Moreover, the record evidence does not
15 show that Sikhs generally are subjected to torture in India;
16 Singh is thus unable to show that he would more likely than not
17 be tortured. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17; Khouzam v.
18 Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 168 (2d Cir. 2004).
19
20
5
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6