21-6024

Singh v. Garland

BIA

A209 387 744

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 14th 4 day of June, two thousand twenty5 three.

6

7 PRESENT:

8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

10 MYRNA PÉREZ,

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _____________________________________

13

14 LOVEPREET SINGH,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 21-6024

18 NAC

19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 _____________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONER: Lawrence Spivak, Jamaica, NY.

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 

27 Attorney General; Cindy S. 

28 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 

29 Tracie N. Jones, Trial Attorney, 
2

1 Office of Immigration Litigation,

2 United States Department of 

3 Justice, Washington, DC.

4

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Lovepreet Singh, a native and citizen of 

10 India, seeks review of a December 14, 2020 decision of the

11 BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Lovepreet Singh, 

12 No. A209 387 744 (B.I.A. Dec. 14, 2020). We assume the 

13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 

14 history.

15 We review the BIA’s denial of reconsideration for abuse 

16 of discretion. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 

17 111 (2d Cir. 2006). A motion to reconsider “shall specify 

18 the errors of law or fact in the previous order.” 8 U.S.C. 

19 § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen 

20 Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001). 

21 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to 

22 reverse its prior decision because there was no error in the 

23 adverse credibility determination, i.e., substantial evidence 
3

1 supported that determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); 

2 Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 

3 The agency’s adverse credibility determination was supported 

4 by Singh’s inconsistent evidence regarding whether he 

5 required treatment at a hospital after first being attacked, 

6 whether he told people from his party about both his attacks, 

7 and whether his father has ever left India. See 8 U.S.C. 

8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 

9 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might 

10 preclude an alien from showing that an IJ was compelled to 

11 find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies would so 

12 preclude even more forcefully.”). Thus, the BIA did not abuse 

13 its discretion in concluding that Singh had not persuasively 

14 shown that reversal of its underlying decision was warranted.

15 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke 

16 Zhen Zhao, 265 F.3d at 90.

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

18 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

19 stays VACATED.

20 FOR THE COURT: 

21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

22 Clerk of Court