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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 22 nd** **day of September, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 8 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **MANDEET SINGH, AKA SATISH MALHOTRA,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 13-1783** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 25 **General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,** 26 **Assistant Director; Sheri R. Glaser,** 27 **Attorney, Office of Immigration** 28 **Litigation, United States Department** 29 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 30UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Mandeet Singh, a native and citizen of 5 India, seeks review of an April 8, 2013 order of the BIA, 6 affirming the August 17, 2012 decision of an Immigration 7 Judge (“IJ”), which denied a continuance, asylum, 8 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 9 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mandeet Singh , No. A087 899 10 527 (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2013), aff’gNo. A087 899 527 (Immig. 11 Ct. New York City Aug. 17, 2012). We assume the parties’ 12 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 13 in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 15 decisions of both the IJ and the BIA.See Yun-Zui Guan v. 16 Gonzales , 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). 17 The applicable standards of review are well established. 18
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. 19 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 20 I. Credibility Determination 21 For applications such as Singh’s, which are governed by 22 the REAL ID Act, the agency may base a credibility finding 23 2on an applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, 1 and inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to 2 whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 3 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer therefore to an IJ’s 4 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 5 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder 6 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia 7 Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. 8 Initially, Singh has waived review of the agency’s 9 implausibility, demeanor, and corroboration findings by 10 failing to contest them in this Court. Yueqing Zhang v. 11 Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 542 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) (“‘Issues not 12 sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and 13 normally will not be addressed on appeal.’” (quoting Norton 14 v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998)). For the 15 same reason, Singh has waived review of the agency’s finding 16 that he testified inconsistently about whether Akali Dal 17 Mann was legally recognized and took part in coalitions. 18 Id.Moreover, Singh failed to exhaust any challenge to the 19 specific “findings that informed the IJ’s adverse 20 credibility determination” before the BIA. Shunfu Li v. 21 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008); Lin Zhong v. U.S. 22

3Dep’t of Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007) 1 (observing that issue exhaustion is a mandatory, although 2 not jurisdictional, requirement). 3 Thus, the sole challenge preserved on appeal is to the 4 agency’s reliance on Singh’s credible fear interview. When 5 discrepancies arise from an applicant’s statements in a 6 credible fear interview, we will closely examine the 7 interview report to ensure that it represents a 8 “sufficiently accurate record” to merit consideration in 9 determining whether the applicant is credible. Ming Zhang 10 v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 723-25 (2d Cir. 2009). Singh’s 11 credible fear interview bore sufficient indicia of 12 reliability because: (1) it was memorialized in a 13 typewritten document setting forth the questions and 14 responses; (2) it was conducted with a Punjabi interpreter 15 and Singh does not contend that he did not understand any 16 questions; (3) the interviewing officer properly explained 17 the purpose of the interview; and (4) the questions were 18 clearly designed to elicit a potential basis for asylum, 19 such as why did you leave your country, why do you fear the 20 Congress party, and what do you think will happen if you 21 return to your country. See Ming Zhang, 585 F.3d at 723-25. 22

4Based on the foregoing, we find that the agency’s 1 adverse credibility determination is supported by 2 substantial evidence because it cannot be said “that no 3 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse 4 credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. The 5 agency therefore did not err in denying asylum, withholding 6 of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims shared 7 the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 8 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006);Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 9 Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005). 10 II. Continuance Denial 11 We review the agency’s denial of a continuance for 12 abuse of discretion. See Sanusi v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 193, 13 199 (2d Cir. 2006); Singh v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 14 526 F.3d 72, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2008). The regulations provide 15 that an IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good 16 cause shown;” however, the regulations do not define “good 17

cause.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. We have observed that 18 “[a]n IJ would . . . abuse his discretion in denying a 19 continuance if ‘(1) [his] decision rests on an error of law 20 (such as application of the wrong legal principle) or a 21 clearly erroneous factual finding or (2) [his] 22 decision—though not necessarily the product of a legal error 23 5or a clearly erroneous factual finding—cannot be located 1 within the range of permissible decisions.’”Morgan v. 2 Gonzales , 445 F.3d 549, 551-52 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 3 Zervos v. Verizon New York, Inc. , 252 F.3d 163, 169 (2d Cir. 4 2001) (alterations in Morgan)). 5 Here, the IJ denied Singh’s motion to continue his 6 merits hearing, which Singh sought in order to obtain 7 supporting letters and statements from India, because it was 8 filed after the deadline and Singh had over a year between 9 his master calendar and merits hearings to obtain supporting 10 evidence. Indeed, Singh filed his motion on July 17, 2012, 11 after the June 8, 2012 filing deadline, and Singh had more 12 than a year and eight months between his November 2010 13 master calender and August 2012 merits hearings to obtain 14 evidence. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying 15 the motion to continue. See Morgan , 445 F.3d at 551-52. 16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 18 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 19 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 20 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 21 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 22 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 23 6Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 1
FOR THE COURT: 2 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 3 4 5

7