2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-22-2010

Manjinder Singh v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-4700

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Manjinder Singh v. Atty Gen USA" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1853.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1853
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-4700

___________

MANJINDER SINGH,

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

 Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A079-083-9900)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Henry S. Dogin

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 20, 2010

Before: MCKEE, HARDIMAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 22, 2010)

_________

 OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Manjinder Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) final order of removal. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. 
Although Singh was, at the time, living in New Jersey with his sister (who 1

allegedly lived with him in India during the relevant time period), he did not produce her

at the hearing or submit an affidavit from her. Moreover, Singh did not submit an

affidavit from his father, whom the IJ described as “a very important person in this case.” 

(Decision of IJ at 13.) Finally, Singh did not provide any documentation from the

Congress Party indicating that he was, in fact, a member.

2

Because the background of this case is familiar to the parties, we discuss it only

briefly here. In November 2000, Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United

States without valid entry documents. In October 2005, the Department of Homeland

Security initiated removal proceedings against him. He conceded removability and, in

February 2006, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In support of his application, he argued that he

feared returning to India because of persecution he had received on account of his

membership in India’s Congress Party.

In July 2006, Singh testified before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ concluded

that Singh’s testimony lacked credibility, identifying several inconsistencies between the

testimony and documents in the record. In light of these inconsistencies, the IJ required

corroboration for Singh’s claims. Singh, however, failed to provide any such

corroboration. As a result, the IJ rejected his claim of past persecution. As for Singh’s 1

claims of future persecution and torture, the IJ stated that even if there was any truth to

Singh’s testimony, he could safely return to India because the Congress Party was

currently in power. Accordingly, the IJ denied Singh’s application.
3

In November 2008, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. The BIA held

that the IJ had “considered the ‘totality of the circumstances’ in finding [Singh] not

credible.” (Decision of BIA at 1.) The BIA highlighted some of the inconsistencies cited

in the IJ’s decision, and noted that the IJ had discussed the various corroborating

documentation that Singh had “failed to provide without adequate explanation.” (Id.) 

The BIA concluded that because the IJ’s “adverse credibility determination was supported

by specific, cogent reasons for which [Singh] provided no reasonable explanations, we do

not find it to be clearly erroneous.” (Id.) Additionally, the BIA held that the IJ’s

“adverse credibility finding also compels denial of his application under the [CAT], since

that application is based on identical facts.” (Id.) Singh now seeks review of the BIA’s

decision.

II.

We have jurisdiction over this petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Where

“the BIA both adopts the findings of the IJ and discusses some of the bases for the IJ’s

decision, we have authority to review the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA.” Chen v.

Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004).

Singh argues that IJ and BIA did not provide “specific, cogent reasons” in support

of the adverse credibility determination. This argument is baseless. The IJ’s decision

clearly identified and discussed several important inconsistencies between Singh’s

testimony and documents in the record. Moreover, in adopting and affirming the IJ’s
decision, the BIA reiterated some of these inconsistencies.

Singh next claims that the IJ failed to afford him an opportunity to explain why he

did not submit corroborating documentation. This claim is belied by the record. At the

hearing before the IJ, Singh’s own attorney asked whether Singh “consider[ed] trying to

obtain affidavits from witnesses or a letter from the Congress Party, for example.” 

(Admin. Rec. at 124.) Singh responded by conceding, “No, I didn’t. No, I didn’t get it, I

wasn’t thinking of it.” (Id.)

Finally, Singh contends that the BIA failed to consider his CAT claim apart from

his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We disagree. In its decision, the BIA

specifically addressed Singh’s CAT claim and reasoned that, because that claim relied on

the same evidence as his other claims – evidence that lacked credibility – Singh could not

prevail on his CAT claim. We find no error in the BIA’s analysis.

In light of the above, we will deny Singh’s petition for review.

4