10-5137-ag

Singh v. Holder

BIA

Elstein, IJ

A098 344 913

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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT

REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New

York, on the 15th day of November, two thousand eleven.

PRESENT:

JON O. NEWMAN,

ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

DENNY CHIN,

 Circuit Judges. 

_______________________________________

SUKIWINDER SINGH,

Petitioner, 

 v. 10-5137-ag

NAC 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

______________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, New York.

FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;

Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior Litigation

Counsel; Imran R. Zaidi, Trial Attorney; Geoffrey Mitchell, Law Clerk,

Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington D.C.
-2-

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is

DENIED.

Petitioner Sukiwinder Singh, a native and citizen of

India, seeks review of a December 2, 2010, decision of the BIA

affirming the June 11, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge

(“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein, denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sukiwinder Singh, No. A098 344

913 (B.I.A. Dec. 2, 2010), aff’g No. A098 344 913 (Immig. Ct.

N.Y. City June 11, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514

F.3d 233, 237 (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). For asylum applications, like Singh’s, governed by the

REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of

the circumstances, . . . base a credibility finding on, . . .

the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written

or oral statements, . . . the internal consistency of each

such statement, the consistency of such statements with other
-3-

evidence of record, . . . without regard to whether an

inconsistency . . . goes to the heart of the applicant’s

claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d

at 165-66. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse

credibility determination. In finding Singh not credible, the

IJ relied on several inconsistencies in the record. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. For

example, Singh’s testimony was inconsistent with his parents’

letter regarding the length of his 1999 detention and whether

police harassed them at home on hundreds of occasions. In

addition, Singh made inconsistent assertions regarding whether

or not his mother had been arrested. The agency reasonably

declined to credit Singh’s explanations for these

discrepancies based on the amount of time he had to correct

his application and evidence. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430

F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2005). 

As Singh’s credibility was called into question due to

the inconsistences, the agency reasonably relied further on

his failure to provide sufficient corroborating evidence. See

Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.

2007)(recognizing that an asylum applicant’s failure to

corroborate his testimony may bear on his credibility,
-4-

“because the absence of corroboration in general makes an

applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already

been called into question”). The IJ specifically noted the

inadequacy of Singh’s parents’ letter as corroborating

evidence because it failed to mention critical details of

Singh’s claim. 

Furthermore, while Singh’s assertion that the IJ erred

concerning his cousin-in-law’s whereabouts from 1992 to 1997

is supported by the record, it does not amount to reversible

error. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99,

107 (2d Cir. 2006) (remand is not required where a sufficient

alternative basis supports the agency’s determination). 

Ultimately, the agency’s adverse credibility

determination was supported by substantial evidence and

provided an adequate basis for denying Singh’s application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because those

claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Xiu Xia

Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d

148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006)(recognizing that withholding of

removal and CAT claims necessarily fail if the applicant is

unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed

to make out an asylum claim and the factual predicate for the

claims is the same).
-5-

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 DISMISSED 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).

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk