16-1350 Singh v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A200 170 125 

### 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** 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 11 th**  **day of April, two thousand nineteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **TALWINDER SINGH,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 16-1350** 16 **NAC** 17 **WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.*** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Karamvir Dahiya, Dahiya Law 23 Offices, LLC, New York, NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Anthony P. 27 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 28 Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, 29

* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the case caption to conform to the above.2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, Washington, DC. 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 6 is DENIED. 7 Petitioner Talwinder Singh, a native and citizen of 8 India, seeks review of a March 29, 2016 decision of the BIA 9 affirming a September 15, 2014 decision of an Immigration 10 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding 11 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 12 (“CAT”). In re Talwinder Singh, No. A200 170 125 (B.I.A. 13 Mar. 29, 2016), aff’g No. A200 170 125 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 14 Sept. 15, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 15 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 16 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 17 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 18 v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 19 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun v. Sessions , 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d 21 Cir. 2018). 223 Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Relief 1 “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to 2 sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but 3 only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the 4 applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers 5 to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the 6 applicant is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see 7 also Wei Sun , 883 F.3d at 28. “In determining whether the 8 applicant has met [his] burden, the trier of fact may weigh 9 the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. 10 Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should 11 provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible 12 testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the 13 applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably 14 obtain the evidence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). 15 The IJ reasonably required evidence to corroborate 16 Singh’s testimony given that his credibility was questionable 17 and his testimony unpersuasive. See id. ; see also Wei Sun , 18 883 F.3d at 28. For example, the record evidence conflicted 19 with Singh’s testimony that his father was detained and killed 20 for having been a member of the Akali Dal Mann Party. Singh 21 also made inconsistent statements regarding whether he 224 communicates often with his family in India or avoids doing 1 so because of his continued fear of police. Further, his 2 testimony regarding his alleged arrests and detentions lacked 3 detail. 4 The IJ did not err in finding that Singh failed to 5 adequately corroborate his claims. Singh did not submit any 6 objective evidence that he was or remains a member of the 7 Akali Dal Mann Party, nor did he submit any evidence to 8 corroborate his testimony that he suffered lacerations on his 9 back from being beaten with a belt during one of his 10 detentions. The only evidence Singh submitted to corroborate 11 his arrests were affidavits from his mother and village 12 leader. Those affidavits, however, did not provide any 13 further details about his arrests. Further, the country 14 conditions evidence that he provided did not corroborate 15 Singh’s claim that police continue to target Sikh members of 16 the Akali Dal Mann Party. S e e, e.g. , Jagtar Singh v. Holder , 17 753 F.3d 826, 832-37 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that a 18 fundamental change in conditions in India had occurred since 19 the 1980s and early 1990s suc h that “individuals are unlikely 20 to be persecuted because of their involvement with Sikh 21 separatist groups [like the Akali Dal Mann Party.]”). 225 For these reasons, the agency did not err in finding that 1 Singh failed to satisfy his burden of establishing past 2 persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account 3 of his political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); 4 see also Wei Sun , 883 F.3d at 28. That finding is dispositive 5 of asylum, withholding of removal, a nd CAT relief because all 6 three claims were based on the same factual predicate. See 7 Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 8 Accordingly, we do not reach Singh’s challenge to the agency’s 9 alternative basis for denying asylum—his failure to timely 10 file his application. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 11 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not 12 required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 13 unnecessary to the results they reach.”). We further note 14 that, on appeal, Singh has abandoned any challenge to the 15 BIA’s decision declining to remand for consideration of newly 16 submitted, but previously available evidence. We therefore do 17 not review that decision. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 18 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that the 19 Court will not consider issues and claims abandoned in a 20 petitioner’s brief). 216 Due Process Claims 1 We do not consider Singh’s unexhausted claim that his 2 due process rights were violated at his hearing by the use of 3 a Punjabi translator who uses the Shahmukhi script, whereas 4 Singh speaks Punjabi but uses the Gurmukhi script. See Lin 5 Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 119-24 (2d Cir. 6 2007) (concluding that exhaustion of administrative remedies 7 is a predicate of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, 8 while exhaustion of specific issues is mandatory). We note, 9 however, that the transcript reflects that Singh understood 10 the proceedings. 11 Singh next argues that the IJ violated due process by 12 declining to permit two proposed witnesses to testify at his 13 hearing. In the immigration context, “[t]o establish a 14 violation of due process, an alien must show that []he was 15 denied a full and fair opportunity to present h[is] claims or 16 that the IJ or BIA otherwise deprived h[im] of fundamental 17 fairness.” Burger v. Gonzales , 498 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 18 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Parties claiming 19 denial of due process in immigration cases must, in order to 20 prevail, allege some cognizable prejudice fairly attributable 21 to the challenged process.” Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey , 531 227 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks 1 omitted). Although a noncitizen has a right to “a reasonable 2 opportunity . . . to present evidence on [his] own behalf,” 3 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B), “[d]ecisions regarding the 4 appropriate conduct of a hearing and the submission of 5 evidence are committed to the discretion of the immigration 6 judge[,]” Ahmed v. Holder , 624 F.3d 150, 156 (2d Cir. 2010) 7 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(c)). An IJ abuses his discretion 8 in setting and enforcing deadlines for the submission of 9 evidence when (1) his “decision rests on an error of law . . . 10 or a clearly erroneous factual finding”; or (2) his “decision— 11 though not necessarily the product of legal error or a clearly 12 erroneous factual finding—cannot be located within the range 13 of permissible decisions.” Dedji v. Mukasey , 525 F.3d 187, 14 191-92 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Morgan v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 15 549, 551-52 (2d Cir. 2006)). 16 The IJ did not abuse his discretion, much less violate 17 due process, in declining to permit Singh’s two proposed 18 witnesses to testify. The IJ acted within his discretion in 19 so doing because, despite having two years to prepare his 20 case, Singh did not submit a witness list before the deadline 21 set by the IJ or before the deadline provided in the 228 Immigration Court Practice Manual. Manual, § 3.1(b)(ii)(A), 1 (d)(ii); see Dedji , 525 F.3d at 191-92. Moreover, the 2 witnesses were caught listening to Singh’s testimony after 3 having been sequestered. The IJ thus provided Singh a full 4 and fair opportunity to present his witnesses, and he and his 5 witnesses squandered that opportunity. See Burger , 498 F.3d 6 at 134. Nor has Singh established any prejudice resulting 7 from the IJ’s action: Singh has never identified the witnesses 8 by name, described their proposed testimony in any detail, or 9 submitted their affidavits. See Garcia-Villeda , 531 F.3d at 10 149; Rabiu v. INS , 41 F.3d 879, 882-83 (2d Cir. 1994) (“In 11 order . . . to show . . . actual prejudice, [a petitioner] 12 must make a prima facie showing that he would have been 13 eligible for the relief and that he could have made a strong 14 showing in support of his application.”). 15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 16

DENIED. 17

FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 19 Clerk of Court 20