21

- 6024 Singh v. Garland BIA A 209 387 744



### 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 ELECTR**  **ONIC 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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marsha**  **ll** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 1**  **4 t**  **h da**  **y of J**  **u n**  **e ,**  **two thousand twenty** 

**** 4 **three**

**.** 5 6
**PRESENT:** 7 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR. ,**  8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 **MYRNA PÉREZ,** 10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13
**LOVEPREET SINGH ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16

**v. 21** 

**- 6024**  17
**NAC** 18
**MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19
**STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23
**FOR PETITIONER :**  Lawrence Spivak , Jamaica, NY

. 24 25
**FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian M. Boynton , Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Cindy S. 27 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 28 Tracie N. Jones , Trial Attorney , 292 Office of Immigration Litigation , 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, Washingto n, DC. 3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5

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

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 7

is DENIED. 8

Petitioner Lovepreet Singh , a native and citizen of 9

India , seek s review of a December 14, 2020 decision of the 10

BIA denying his motion to reconsider

. In re Lovepreet Singh , 11

No. A 209 387 744 (B.I.A. Dec. 14, 2020 )

. We assume the 12

parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 13

history. 14

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

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

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

the errors of law or fact in the previous order

. ” 8 U.S.C. 18

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

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

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to 21

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

adverse c redibility determination, i.e. , substantial evidence 233 supported that determination

. See 8 U.S.C

. § 1229a(c)( 6)(C); 1

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

. 2

The agency’s adverse credibility determination was supported 3

by Singh’s inconsistent evidence regarding whether he 4

required treatment at a hospital after first being attack ed , 5

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

and whether his father has ever left India

. S ee 8 U.S.C. 7

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

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

preclude an alien from showing that an IJ was compelled t o 10

find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies would so 11

preclude even more forceful ly.”)

. T hus , the BIA did not abuse 12

its discretion in concluding that Singh had not persuasively 13

shown that reversal of its underlying decision was warranted

. 14

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

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

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17

DENIE D. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 18

stays VACATED. 19

FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 21
Clerk of Court 22