13-1783

Singh v. Holder

BIA

Vomacka, IJ

A087 899 527

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 United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 22nd 4 day of September, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 MANDEET SINGH, AKA SATISH MALHOTRA,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 13-1783

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

26 General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,

27 Assistant Director; Sheri R. Glaser,

28 Attorney, Office of Immigration

29 Litigation, United States Department

30 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Mandeet Singh, a native and citizen of

6 India, seeks review of an April 8, 2013 order of the BIA,

7 affirming the August 17, 2012 decision of an Immigration

8 Judge (“IJ”), which denied a continuance, asylum,

9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mandeet Singh, No. A087 899

11 527 (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2013), aff’g No. A087 899 527 (Immig.

12 Ct. New York City Aug. 17, 2012). We assume the parties’

13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

14 in this case. 

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the

16 decisions of both the IJ and the BIA. See Yun-Zui Guan v.

17 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). 

18 The applicable standards of review are well established. 

19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v.

20 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

21 I. Credibility Determination

22 For applications such as Singh’s, which are governed by

23 the REAL ID Act, the agency may base a credibility finding

2
1 on an applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account,

2 and inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to

3 whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8

4 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer therefore to an IJ’s

5 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the

6 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder

7 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia

8 Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

9 Initially, Singh has waived review of the agency’s

10 implausibility, demeanor, and corroboration findings by

11 failing to contest them in this Court. Yueqing Zhang v.

12 Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 542 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) (“‘Issues not

13 sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and

14 normally will not be addressed on appeal.’” (quoting Norton

15 v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998)). For the

16 same reason, Singh has waived review of the agency’s finding

17 that he testified inconsistently about whether Akali Dal

18 Mann was legally recognized and took part in coalitions. 

19 Id. Moreover, Singh failed to exhaust any challenge to the

20 specific “findings that informed the IJ’s adverse

21 credibility determination” before the BIA. Shunfu Li v.

22 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008); Lin Zhong v. U.S.

3
1 Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007)

2 (observing that issue exhaustion is a mandatory, although

3 not jurisdictional, requirement).

4 Thus, the sole challenge preserved on appeal is to the

5 agency’s reliance on Singh’s credible fear interview. When

6 discrepancies arise from an applicant’s statements in a

7 credible fear interview, we will closely examine the

8 interview report to ensure that it represents a

9 “sufficiently accurate record” to merit consideration in

10 determining whether the applicant is credible. Ming Zhang

11 v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 723-25 (2d Cir. 2009). Singh’s

12 credible fear interview bore sufficient indicia of

13 reliability because: (1) it was memorialized in a

14 typewritten document setting forth the questions and

15 responses; (2) it was conducted with a Punjabi interpreter

16 and Singh does not contend that he did not understand any

17 questions; (3) the interviewing officer properly explained

18 the purpose of the interview; and (4) the questions were

19 clearly designed to elicit a potential basis for asylum,

20 such as why did you leave your country, why do you fear the

21 Congress party, and what do you think will happen if you

22 return to your country. See Ming Zhang, 585 F.3d at 723-25.

4
1 Based on the foregoing, we find that the agency’s

2 adverse credibility determination is supported by

3 substantial evidence because it cannot be said “that no

4 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse

5 credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The

6 agency therefore did not err in denying asylum, withholding

7 of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims shared

8 the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d

9 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of

10 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005). 

11 II. Continuance Denial

12 We review the agency’s denial of a continuance for

13 abuse of discretion. See Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193,

14 199 (2d Cir. 2006); Singh v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

15 526 F.3d 72, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2008). The regulations provide

16 that an IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good

17 cause shown;” however, the regulations do not define “good

18 cause.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. We have observed that

19 “[a]n IJ would . . . abuse his discretion in denying a

20 continuance if ‘(1) [his] decision rests on an error of law

21 (such as application of the wrong legal principle) or a

22 clearly erroneous factual finding or (2) [his]

23 decision—though not necessarily the product of a legal error

5
1 or a clearly erroneous factual finding—cannot be located

2 within the range of permissible decisions.’” Morgan v.

3 Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551-52 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting

4 Zervos v. Verizon New York, Inc., 252 F.3d 163, 169 (2d Cir.

5 2001) (alterations in Morgan)). 

6 Here, the IJ denied Singh’s motion to continue his

7 merits hearing, which Singh sought in order to obtain

8 supporting letters and statements from India, because it was

9 filed after the deadline and Singh had over a year between

10 his master calendar and merits hearings to obtain supporting

11 evidence. Indeed, Singh filed his motion on July 17, 2012,

12 after the June 8, 2012 filing deadline, and Singh had more

13 than a year and eight months between his November 2010

14 master calender and August 2012 merits hearings to obtain

15 evidence. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying

16 the motion to continue. See Morgan, 445 F.3d at 551-52. 

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

21 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

22 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

23 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

6
1 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

2 FOR THE COURT: 

3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

4

5

7