20

- 1064 Singh v. Garland BIA Hom , IJ A 206 079 306 

### 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 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 Thu**  **rgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 3**  **1 s**  **t da**  **y of A**  **u g**  **u s**  **t , two thousand**  **twenty**
  4 ** two.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 **JOSEPH F. BIANCO,** 10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

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

**- 1064**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Anas J. Ahmed, Esq. , Pannun the 24 Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Madeline Henley , Trial Attorney ; 27 Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant 282 Director, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, for Brian 3 Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 4 General, Washington , D C. 5
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this 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 Gurmeet Singh , a native and citizen of India , 10

seeks review of a February 25, 2020 decision of the BIA 11
affirming a June 27, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 12

(“IJ”) , which den ied his application for asylum, withholding 13
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14

(“CAT”)

. In re Gurmeet Singh , No. A 206 079 306 (B.I.A. Feb. 15
25, 2020 ) , aff’g No. A 206 079 306 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 16
27, 2018 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17
underlying facts and procedural history. 18
We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the 19
sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec

. , 20
448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review adverse 21
credibility determinations for substantial e vidence, see Hong 22

Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and treat 23

“ the administrative findings of fact [ as ] conclusive unless 243 any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to 1
the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 2
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 3

relevant fact ors , a trier of fact may base a credibility 4
determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 5

or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the 6
consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 7

. . . , and any inaccuracies o r falsehoods in such statements, 8
without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or 9
falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim , or any 10

other r elevant factor .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “ We 11
defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from 12
the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no 13

reasonable fact

- finder could make such an adverse credibility 14
ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v . Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 15

2008); accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial 16
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh was 17

not credible as to his claim that members of an opposition 18
political party (the “ Congress Party ”) thr eatened and 19

assaulted him because of his membership in the Shiromani Akali 20
Dal Amritsar party ( the “Mann Party”)

. 214 The agency reasonably relied on four inconsistencies or 1

omissions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). First, Singh 2

was inconsisten t about when he received threatening tele phone 3
calls from Congress Party members . His written statement 4
said he received two telephone calls in June 2012 and was 5
beaten by Congress Party members just over a year later in 6
July 2013 ; however, he testified that he received the calls 7
in June 2013, then was beaten a month later. When confronted 8
with the discrepancy at his hearing, he changed his testimony 9
to agree with his application

. This inconsistency undermines 10

his claim because it calls into question the timeline that 11
Singh gave for the threats and the attack

. See Hong Fei Gao, 12
891 F.3d at 79 (“An applicant’s testimonial discrepancies . 13
. . must be weighed in light of their significance to the 14
total context of his or her claim of p ersecution.” ( internal 15
quotation marks omitted)). 16
Second, the agency relied on Singh’s differing accounts 17
of his beating. Singh testified on direct and confirmed on 18

cross examination that Congress Party members beat him only 19
with their hands, but in his written statement said he was 20

also kicked

. During his testimony, h e added that he was 215 kicked only when confronted with the discrepancy with the 1

written statement. 2
Third, Singh testified that the doctor who treated him 3

after the attack did not use ba ndages because only his nose 4
was bleeding, but the medical certificate he submitted 5
reflected that he was bandaged as part of his treatment. The 6
IJ was not required to accept his explanation that the doctor 7
may have been “talking about

. . . heart bandage s” for 8
internal injuries because the explanation added injuries not 9
previously alleged and did not identify what was meant by 10
heart bandages

. Cert. Admin. Record at 72

– 73; s ee Majidi v. 11

Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must 12

do more than offer a plausible explanation for his 13

inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate 14

that a reasonable fact

- find er would be compelled to credit 15
his testimony.” ( internal quotation marks omitted) )

. 16
Fourth, the agency did not err in relying on Singh’s 17

omission from his written statement that he lost 18

consciousness during or after the beating

. See Singh v. 19

Garland , 6 F. 4th 418, 428 (2d Cir. 2021) ( “Whether

. . . such 20
statements are inconsistent depends in part on the importance 216 that the omitted fact would have had for the purpose of the 1
earlier telling.”) 2
Taken together, these inconsistencies and omission 3

constitute substantial evidence for the adverse credibil ity 4
determination because they call into question the timeline of 5
events and the primary allegation of past harm. See 8 U.S.C. 6
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. The 7
adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, 8
withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three 9
claims were based on the same factual predicate. S ee Paul 10

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

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 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