Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0046-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jas Pal SINGH, aka Jaspal Singh, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-3974.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 19, 2016.
    Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
    Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; Anthony J. Messuri, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, DENNY CHIN and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jas Pal Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a September 26, 2014, order of the BIA affirming, without opinion, a February 12, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jas Pal Singh, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 26, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 12, 2013). We assume the. parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008). “Considering the totality of the circumstances,” the agency may base a credibility finding on inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other record evidence “without regard to whether” they'go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh was not credible.

The IJ reasonably relied on inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and his earlier sworn statements to an asylum officer during a credible fear interview. See also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165. The IJ did not err in first crediting the reliability of the interview: Singh’s statements were typewritten, he was aided by an interpreter, and he indicated that he understood the questions posed. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 724-25 (2d Cir.2009). The IJ found that Singh’s testimony was inconsistent with that interview because his testimony initially omitted that his sister had been raped, and gave different dates for when he was allegedly attacked in India. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n. 3 (“An inconsistency and an omission are ... functionally equivalent.”). In addition, Singh omitted from his interview (and his father omitted from his supporting affidavit), Singh’s later assertion that opposition party members had burned down their family home. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n. 3. Singh also testified inconsistently regarding whether he had ever been arrested in India. Singh did not provide a compelling explanation for any of the record inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.2005).

The IJ reasonably relied further on Singh’s failure to provide certain corroborating evidence to rehabilitate his discredited testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007). Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings, the agency’s, adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, and is dispositive of Singh’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously , granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).