18

- 2012 Singh v. Garland BIA Christensen , IJ A 20 6 029 865 

### 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 APP**  **ENDIX 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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held a**  **t the Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 1**  **1 t**  **h da**  **y of J**  **a n**  **u a**  **r y**  **, two thousand**  **twenty**
  4 ** two**

**.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **GUIDO CALABRESI ,**  8 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES ,**  9 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **AMARJEET SINGH ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 1**  **8**

**- 2012**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Amarjeet Singh, pro se, Franklin 24 Square, NY

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Ethan P. Davis , Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General ; M. Jocelyn Lopez 282 Wright , Senior Litigation Counsel ; 1 Margot P. Kniffin , Trial Attorney , 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, D C. 5

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of th is petition for review of a 6
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 8

is DENIED

. 9

Petitioner Amarjeet Singh , a native and citizen of India , 10

seeks review of a June 13 , 201 8 , decision of the BIA affirming 11

a June 28, 2017 , decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 12
denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 13
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re Amarjeet Singh , 14

No. A 20 6 029 865 (B.I.A. June 13, 2018 ), aff’g No. A 20 6 029 15

865 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 28, 2017 ). We assume the 16
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 17
history

. 18

We have reviewed both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions

. 19
Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 20
Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 21

established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 22

Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse 23
credibility determination for substantial evidence). 243 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 1
relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2

determination on

. . . the consistency between the 3
applicant’s

. . . written and oral statements

. . . , the 4
internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the 5
consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 6

. . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, 7
or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or 8
any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 9

“ We defer

. . . to an IJ ’s credibility determination 10

unless

. . . it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder could 11
make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. 12
Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei 13

Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence suppo rts the 14
adverse credibility determination. 15
As an initial matter, t he agency reasonably relie d on 16

the record of Singh’ s a sylum interview because it was 17
memorialized in a typewritten document lis ti ng the questions 18
and Singh’s answers, the interviewer asked questions designed 19
to elicit an asylum claim, and the record does not reveal 20
that Singh had difficulty u nderstanding the inte r preter. See 214 Ming Zhang v. Holder , 585 F.3d 715, 725 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Where 1
the record of a credible fear interview displays the hallmarks 2
of reliability, it appropriately can be considered in 3
assessing an alien’s credibility.”)

. Accordingly, the agency 4
reasonably relied on inconsistencies between the interview 5

and Singh’s testimony and within Singh’s testimony regarding 6
how many people attacked him in June 2012, whether the 7
perpetrators of a 2013 attack were affiliated with the 8
Congress Party, what political activities he engaged in after 9
the attacks, and whether hi s father reported his own attack 10
to the police or was threatened with arrest for trying to. 11

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Likai Gao v. Barr , 968 12
F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single 13
inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing tha t an IJ 14
was compelled to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies 15
would so preclude even more forcefully.”); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 16
F.3d at 167 (allowing agency to rely on cumulative effect of 17
even minor inconsistencies) ; Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 78

– 79 18

(“In the immigration context, in assessing the probative 19
value of the omission of certain facts, an IJ should consider 20
whether those facts are ones that a credible petitioner would 215 reasonably have been expected to disclose.”). The agency was 1
not required to ac cept Singh’s explanations that he could not 2

remember certain details

. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 3
77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer 4
a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to 5

secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact

6

finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal 7

quota tion marks omitted)). 8

Moreover, Singh did not rehabilitate h is credibility with 9

reliable corroboration. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 10
268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) ( “An applicant’s failure to 11

corroborate h is

. . . testimony may bear on credibility, 12
because the absence of corroboration in general makes an 13
applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already 14
been called into question.” ). The agency reasonably gave 15
limited weight to Singh’s brother’s testimony, letters from 16

his fath er, a village leader, and a party official, and 17

medical documents. See Y.C. v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d 18
Cir. 2013) ( “We generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of 19
the weight to be afforded an applicant’s documentary 20
evidence.”). His brother’s tes timony was inconsistent with 216 his brother’s own asylum application, his father was an 1

interested witness unavailable for cross examination , the 2
village leader and party official were similarly unavailable 3

for cross examination and their letters lacked details 4
regarding Singh’s attacks, and the medical document also 5
lacked detail and was not contemporaneous with the alleged 6

treatment

. I d. at 334 (upholding BIA’s decision to afford 7
little weight to letter from applicant’s spouse in China); 8

Matter of H

- L

- H

- & Z

- Y

- Z

- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (B.I.A. 9
2010) (finding letters from relatives and friends did not 10
provide substantial support for claim where authors were 11

“interested witnesses

. . . not subject to cross

12
examination”), overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. 13

Holder , 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012). 14
Finally, Singh’s due process arguments fail. His 15
attorney did not object to the admission of the interview 16

record , and Singh failed to demonstrate the requisite 17
prejudice from the inclusion of his bond proceeding in the 18

administrative record , particularly as neither the IJ nor the 19
BIA referenced the bond proceedings

. See Garcia

- Villeda v. 20
Mukasey , 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (requiring prejudice 217 to state a due process claim)

. 1

In sum, taken cumulatively, the inconsistencies and lack 2

of reliable corroboration provide substantial evidence for 3
the adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. 4

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii i) ; Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167

. Th e 5
adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, 6
withholding of removal, and CA T relief because all three forms 7
of relief are based on the same discredited factual predicate. 8

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

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006)

. 9
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 10

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 11

stays VACATED

. 12

FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 14 Clerk of Court 15