20

- 4 36 Singh v. Garland BIA Hom , IJ A 20 8 616 450 

### 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 ELE CTRONIC 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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood**  **Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 2**  **3 r**  **d da**  **y of F**  **e b**  **r u**  **a r**  **y , two thousand**  **twenty**
  4 ** two**

**.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **DENNIS JACOBS ,**  8 **GUIDO CALABRESI ,**  9 **RICHARD J. SULLIVAN ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **HARPREET SINGH ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 20** 

**- 4**  **36** 17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  G enet Getachew , Esq. , Brooklyn , 24 NY

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Jeffrey Bossert Clark , Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General ; 282 Sabatino F. Leo , Senior Litigation 1 Counsel ; Ilana J. Snyder , Trial 2 Attorne y , Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 D C. 6

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of th is petition for review of a 7
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 9

is DENIED

. 10

Petitioner Harpreet Singh , a native and citizen o f India , 11

seeks review of a January 7 , 2020 decision of the BIA 12
affirming a May 4 , 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 13
(“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 14
under the Convention Against Torture (“C AT”)

. In re Harpreet 15
Singh , No. A 20 8 616 450 (B.I.A. Jan. 7 , 2020 ), aff’g No. A 208 16

616 450 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 4 , 2018 ). We assume the 17
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 18
history

. 19

We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See 20
Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 21
Cir. 2006). (“When the BIA briefly affirms the decision of 22
an IJ and adopt[s] the IJ’s reasoning in doing so, we review 23

the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions together.” (internal 243 quotation marks omitted)). We review questions of law de 1
novo and review the agency’s factual findings , including 2
adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. 3
See Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2 d Cir. 2009); 4

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 5
67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018 ). 6
An applicant bears the burden to establish eligibility 7
for asylum by showing either past harm rising to the level of 8
persecution or a well

- founded fear of future persecution. 9

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B ) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). He must 10
“present credible testimony that he subjectively fears 11
persecution and establish that his fear is objectively 12

reasonable.” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 178 13
(2d Cir. 2004). An applicant can meet that burden if his 14
“testimony is credible

. . . [and] persuasive,” but “[i]n 15
determining whether the applicant has met the applicant’s 16
burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony 17
along with other evidence of record. ” 8 U.S.C. 18

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). 19

The record supports the agency’s deter mination that Singh 20
was not credible as to his allegations of past harm by members 214 of rival political parties

. “Considering the totality of the 1
circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 2
base a credibility determination on the

. . . cons istency 3
between the applicant’s

. . . written and oral 4

statements

. . . , the internal consistency of each such 5
statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with 6

other evidence of record.” Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “ We 7

defer

. . . to an IJ’s credibility determination 8

unless

. . . it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder could 9
make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. 10
Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei 11

Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. 12

Sub stantial evidence supports the adverse credibility 13

determination as t he agency reasonably relied on 14
discrepancies between Singh’s testimony and interview. See 15

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) ; Ming Zhang v. Holder , 585 F.3d 16
715, 725 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Where the record of a credible fear 17
interview displays the hallmarks of reliability, it 18
appropriately can be considered in assessing an alien’s 19
credibility.”). Sing h told an asylum officer that he 20
received a beating that resulted in bruises but later 215 te stified that his attackers carried a knife and sword and 1

cut his arm. Although “omissions are less probative of 2
credibility than inconsistencies,” the agency did not err in 3
relying on Singh’s omission of these facts during his 4

interview because he was ask ed how he was beaten and, in 5
contrast to his description of another earlier beating in 6
which he was asked the identical question and stated that he 7
had been beaten with hockey sticks, he did not mention that 8

his attackers ha d weapons . Hong Fei Gao , 891 F. 3d at 78

– 79 9

( “ [I]n assessing the probative value of the omission of 10
certain facts, an IJ should consider whether those facts are 11
ones that a credible petitioner would reasonably have been 12
expected to disclose.” )

. I t was not un reasonable for the 13

agency to expect Singh to disclose the most severe harm 14
supporting his claim. See i d. at 78

– 79 ; see also Singh v. 15

Garland , 6 F.4th 418, 428 (2d Cir. 2021) ( explaining that , 16

“in a hypothetical case, a petitioner who later claims to 17

have been brutal ly beaten but omitted any reference to a 18
beating from his earlier description of his persecution 19
(there mentioning only less brutal conduct such as a slap in 20
the face), can be properly found to have made inconsistent 216 statements and to have fabricated the l ater assertion because 1
the fact of the beating would have been so important to his 2
earlier claim that he would have been expected to have 3

included it ” )

. The agency was not required to accept Singh’s 4
explanation that he was scared to be sent back to India , 5

because the more serious harm would have bolstered his claim. 6

See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A 7
petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 8

for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 9

demons trate that a reasonable fact

- finder would be compelled 10
to credit his testimony.” (quotation marks omitted))

. 11

The agency reasonably concluded that Singh failed to meet 12
his burden of proof because he did not provide reliable, 13
objective evidence to resolve th e inconsistency or 14
corroborate his past harm

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); 15
Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007 ) (“ An 16
applicant’s failure to corroborate his

. . . testimony may 17
bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in 18
general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony 19
that has already been called into question.” )

. The agency 20
was not required to credit Singh’s supporting letters because 217 t he authors were not available for cross examination , Singh’s 1
parents were interested witnesses, and the party leader did 2

not discuss Singh’s harm

. See Y.C. v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 3
332, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) ( holding that “ [w] e generally defer 4
to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to be afforde d an 5
applicant’s documentary evidence” and upholding BIA’s 6
decision to afford little weight to letter from applicant’s 7
spouse); Matter of H

- L

- H

- & Z

- Y

- Z

- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 8
(B.I.A. 2010) (finding letters from relatives and friends did 9
not provide su bstantial support for claim where authors were 10

“interested witnesses

. . . not subject to cross

11
examination”), overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. 12

Holder , 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012). Singh does not challenge 13

the agency’s determination that his country conditions 14

documents contained little current evidence of persecution of 15
members of his party (the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party ) 16
by members of rival parties

. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 17
426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding claim 18

abandoned where not addressed in brief )

. 19

T he agency did not err in concluding that Singh failed 20
to meet his burden of proof given the inconsistency in his 218 descriptions of his past harm and the lack of reliable, 1
objective corroboration. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), 2
(iii). This determination is dispositive of asylum, 3
withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms 4

of relief we re based on the same factual predicate

. See Paul 5

v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006). As this 6
finding is dispositive, we do not reach the alternative 7
grounds for the agency’s decisions. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 8
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies 9
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of 10

w hich is unnecessary to the results they reach.”)

. 11
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 12

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 13

stays VACATED

. 14

FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 16 Clerk of Court 17