18-267 Singh v. Barr BIA Wright, IJ A205 422 118 

### 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 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall**  **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3**  **rd day of January. two thousand twenty.** 

**PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,**  **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, MICHAEL H. PARK,**  Circuit Judges.

**_____________________________________ PARVINDERJEET SINGH,**  Petitioner **, v. 18-267**  **NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES**  **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** Respondent **.**

**_____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER:**  Parvinderjeet Singh, pro se , Jamaica, NY.

**FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; Judith R. O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Parvinderjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a December 29, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming an April 20, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Parvinderjeet Singh, No. A205 422 118 (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2017), aff’g No. A205 422 118 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 20, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between the3 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of e ach such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh was not credible as to his claim that members of his girlfriend’s politically connected family beat him in India because they wanted him to stop dating his girlfriend. The agency reasonably relied on Singh’s inconsistent statements regarding whether his g irlfriend’s father was involved in the beating, who accompanied him to report the attack to police, and whether he was beaten with guns. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh did not provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled4 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Given its findings of inconsistency, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we do not consider the agency’s alternative burden finding. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

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