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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **15 th**  **day of July, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,** 7 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 8 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **ASHWINDER SINGH,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 14-2384** 16 **NAC** 17 18 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER:** Jaspreet Singh, Law Office of 24 Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, New 25 York. 26 27 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 28 Assistant Attorney General; Stephen 292 J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Arthur 1 L. Rabin, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, D.C. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 9

DENIED. 10 Petitioner Ashwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, 11 seeks review of a June 4, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming 12 a July 31, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 13 Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 14 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 15 Ashwinder Singh, No. A200 597 159 (B.I.A. June 4, 2014), aff’g 16

No. A200 597 159 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 31, 2012). We assume 17 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 18 procedural history in this case. 19

We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for 20 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS , 448 F.3d 524, 528 21 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 22 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 23 Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 243 For asylum applications like Singh’s, governed by the REAL 1 ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 2 circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on the 3 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or 4 witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or 5 witness’s account,” and inconsistencies in an applicant’s 6 statements and other record evidence “without regard to 7 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. 9 Here, under “the totality of the circumstances,” the IJ’s 10 adverse credibility determination is based on substantial 11 evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 12 Singh sought asylum and related relief based on his claim 13 that several of his family members, including Singh himself, 14 were threatened, beaten, and even killed based on their 15 affiliation with the Shiromani Alkali Dal Amritsar (“SAD”), a 16 Sikh political party. Singh testified that two Congress Party 17 members and two police officers came to his home, beat him, and 18 accused him of being a militant on behalf of SAD. However, 19 Singh’s written statement in support of his asylum application 20 does not mention that police were pr esent on that date. This 214 inconsistency is supported by the record. Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d 1 at 163-64. 2 The IJ also relied on a discrepancy between Singh’s 3 testimony and a letter from his doctor. Singh testified that 4 he was assaulted by Congress Party members and police on October 5 3, 2009, and that he sought medical treatment on that same day. 6 He submitted a letter from his doctor, stating that he was 7 treated on October 3, 2010—when Singh was already in the United 8 States. Singh explained that the doctor simply made a mistake 9 and that he meant to write 2009, not 2010. After the hearing, 10 Singh submitted an updated letter with the date changed to 2009 11 and a statement from the doctor explaining the mistake. The 12 IJ declined to accept this explanation because Singh only 13 amended the note after the inc onsistency had been pointed out 14 to him at his merits hearing. The IJ’s finding is supported 15 by the record. Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. Moreover, the 16 IJ was not required to accept Singh’s updated letter. Majidi 17 v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). 18 The IJ relied on an additional discrepancy between Singh’s 19 testimony and his uncle’s death certificate. According to 20 Singh, his uncle died in June 2009, but Singh stated that he 215 had never seen the death certificate, which is dated 2010 and 1 is unauthenticated. The IJ reasoned that Singh’s 2 unfamiliarity with the document dim inished his credibility. 3 This finding is questionable: the IJ did not explain how the 4 irregularities in the death certificate bear on Singh’s 5 credibility, and the record contains no information about the 6 conditions under which death certificates are issued in India. 7

See Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 428 F.3d 391, 405 (2d 8 Cir. 2005) (holding that it was improper speculation to rely 9

on assumptions about foreign practices with no evidence of those 10 practices). Nonetheless, the IJ was entitled to rely on the 11 fact that Singh had never seen the death certificate for his 12 own relative submitted in his ow n case, as this does cast doubt 13 on Singh’s credibility. Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64 14 (holding that IJ may rely on any inconsistency, however minor). 15 Under the REAL ID Act, the IJ is entitled to rely on 16 inconsistencies that do not go to the “heart” of the claim. 8 17 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). And here, the IJ reasonably 18 relied on the cumulative impact of the three discrepancies. Tu 19 Lin v. Gonzales , 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, 20 the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by 216 substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). This 1 finding was sufficient to deny asylum, withholding of removal, 2 and CAT relief, as all three claims were based on the same 3 factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d 4 Cir. 2006) (withholding); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 5 Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAT). 6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 7 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 8 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 9 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 10 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 11 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 12 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 13 34.1(b). 14

FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 16