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 3rd 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 the 
3 

applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 

the internal consistency of each 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 girlfriend’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 compelled
4 

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