14-2384 

Singh v. Lynch

BIA 

Christensen, IJ 

A200 597 159

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 TO 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 for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

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

15th 4 day of July, two thousand fifteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 

9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 ASHWINDER SINGH, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 14-2384 

17 NAC 

18 

19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

21 Respondent. 

22 _____________________________________ 

23 

24 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Law Office of 

25 Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, New 

26 York. 

27 

28 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

29 Assistant Attorney General; Stephen 
2

1 J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Arthur 

2 L. Rabin, Trial Attorney, Office of 

3 Immigration Litigation, United 

4 States Department of Justice, 

5 Washington, D.C. 

6 

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

10 DENIED. 

11 Petitioner Ashwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, 

12 seeks review of a June 4, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming 

13 a July 31, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 

14 Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

15 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 

16 Ashwinder Singh, No. A200 597 159 (B.I.A. June 4, 2014), aff’g

17 No. A200 597 159 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 31, 2012). We assume 

18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

19 procedural history in this case. 

20 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for 

21 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 

22 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 

23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 

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

1 For asylum applications like Singh’s, governed by the REAL 

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

3 circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on the 

4 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or 

5 witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or 

6 witness’s account,” and inconsistencies in an applicant’s 

7 statements and other record evidence “without regard to 

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

9 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. 

10 Here, under “the totality of the circumstances,” the IJ’s 

11 adverse credibility determination is based on substantial 

12 evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 

13 Singh sought asylum and related relief based on his claim 

14 that several of his family members, including Singh himself, 

15 were threatened, beaten, and even killed based on their 

16 affiliation with the Shiromani Alkali Dal Amritsar (“SAD”), a 

17 Sikh political party. Singh testified that two Congress Party 

18 members and two police officers came to his home, beat him, and 

19 accused him of being a militant on behalf of SAD. However, 

20 Singh’s written statement in support of his asylum application 

21 does not mention that police were present on that date. This 
4

1 inconsistency is supported by the record. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d 

2 at 163-64. 

3 The IJ also relied on a discrepancy between Singh’s 

4 testimony and a letter from his doctor. Singh testified that 

5 he was assaulted by Congress Party members and police on October 

6 3, 2009, and that he sought medical treatment on that same day. 

7 He submitted a letter from his doctor, stating that he was 

8 treated on October 3, 2010—when Singh was already in the United 

9 States. Singh explained that the doctor simply made a mistake 

10 and that he meant to write 2009, not 2010. After the hearing, 

11 Singh submitted an updated letter with the date changed to 2009 

12 and a statement from the doctor explaining the mistake. The 

13 IJ declined to accept this explanation because Singh only 

14 amended the note after the inconsistency had been pointed out 

15 to him at his merits hearing. The IJ’s finding is supported 

16 by the record. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Moreover, the 

17 IJ was not required to accept Singh’s updated letter. Majidi 

18 v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). 

19 The IJ relied on an additional discrepancy between Singh’s 

20 testimony and his uncle’s death certificate. According to 

21 Singh, his uncle died in June 2009, but Singh stated that he 
5

1 had never seen the death certificate, which is dated 2010 and 

2 is unauthenticated. The IJ reasoned that Singh’s 

3 unfamiliarity with the document diminished his credibility. 

4 This finding is questionable: the IJ did not explain how the 

5 irregularities in the death certificate bear on Singh’s 

6 credibility, and the record contains no information about the 

7 conditions under which death certificates are issued in India. 

8 See Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 405 (2d 

9 Cir. 2005) (holding that it was improper speculation to rely 

10 on assumptions about foreign practices with no evidence of those 

11 practices). Nonetheless, the IJ was entitled to rely on the 

12 fact that Singh had never seen the death certificate for his 

13 own relative submitted in his own case, as this does cast doubt 

14 on Singh’s credibility. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64 

15 (holding that IJ may rely on any inconsistency, however minor). 

16 Under the REAL ID Act, the IJ is entitled to rely on 

17 inconsistencies that do not go to the “heart” of the claim. 8 

18 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). And here, the IJ reasonably 

19 relied on the cumulative impact of the three discrepancies. Tu 

20 Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, 

21 the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by 
6

1 substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). This 

2 finding was sufficient to deny asylum, withholding of removal, 

3 and CAT relief, as all three claims were based on the same 

4 factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d 

5 Cir. 2006) (withholding); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 

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

7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

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

9 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

10 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

11 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

12 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

13 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

14 34.1(b). 

15 FOR THE COURT: 

16 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk