18

- 1957 Singh v. Barr BIA Christensen , IJ A 208 569 583 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## AMENDED **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 FED**  **ERAL 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 16**  **th da**  **y of September**  **, two thousand twenty**  **.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROSEMARY S. POOLE R**  **,** 7 **REENA RAGGI ,**  8 **JOSEPH F. BIANCO ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **DMARMINDER SINGH, AKA DHARMINDER** 13 **SINGH ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16

**v. 18** 

**- 1957**  17 **NAC** 18 **WILLIAM P. BARR ,**  **UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  20 **R espondent**  **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Deepti Vithal , Richmond Hill, NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H . Hunt , Assistant Attorney 26 General; Jonathan A. Robbins , 27 Senior Litigation Counsel ; Dana M. 28 Camilleri , Trial Attorney , Office 29

* Th e Court’s initial order stated the decision date as September 16, 2019. This amended order, issued on September 21, 2020, correctly states the decision date as September 16, 2020.2 of Immigration Litigation , United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 U PON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 7

is DENIED. 8

Petitioner Dmarminder Singh , a native and citizen of 9

India , seeks review of a June 13 , 201 8 , decision of the BIA 10
affirming a n August 7 , 2017 , decision of an I mmigration Judge 11

(“IJ”) d enying his application for asylum, withholding of 12

removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13

(“CAT”). In re Dmarminder Singh , No. A 208 569 583 (B.I.A. 14

June 13 , 2018 ), aff’g No. A 208 569 583 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 15

Aug. 7 , 2017 ). We assume the parties’ f amiliarity with the 16
underlying facts and procedural his tory. 17

Under the circumstances, we have consider ed both the IJ’s 18
and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 19
Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security , 448 F.3d 524, 528 20

(2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 21

est ablished. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 22

Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 23

243 “ C onsidering the totality of the circumstances, and all 1
relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2

determination on

. . . the consistency between the 3
applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 4
the internal consistency of each such statement, the 5
consistency of such state ments with other evidence of 6

record

. . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, 7
inaccuracy, or falsehood go es to the heart of the applicant’s 8

claim , or any other relevant factor .” 8 U.S.C. 9

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 10

163

- 64 (2d Cir. 2008) . Substantial evidence supports the 11
agency’s determination that Singh was not credible as to his 12

claim that members of the Akali Dal Badal party beat him twice 13
in India on account of his membership in the Shiromani Akali 14

Dal Amri tsar Party. 15
The agency reasonably relied on Singh’s inconsistent 16
statements regarding whether police in India detained and 17
harmed him when he reported being beaten by members of the 18

Badal Party

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh did 19
not provide compelling explanations for this inconsistenc y
. 20
See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A 21
petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 224 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 1

demonstrate that a reasonable fact

- finder would be compelled 2
to credit his testimony.” (internal citat ion and quotation 3

marks omitted)). 4
The agency also reasonably found that Singh’s inability 5
to recall the name of his political party impugned his 6
credibility because it was inconsistent with his claim that 7

he was targeted and beaten on account of his acti ve membership 8
in that party. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh 9
attempted to explain that he could not recall the name of his 10
party because his beatings had impacted his memory. The IJ 11
was not compelled to credit that explanation because Singh 12

did not submit medical evidence of memory issues and was able 13

to recall the name of the party that targeted him

. See 14
Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80. 15
The agency also reasonably relied on the inconsisten cy 16

between Singh’s statements during his credible fear interview 17

and his hearing testimony regarding when he was threatened 18

and beaten in India. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). As 19
an initial matter, the agency did not err in relying on the 20
record of Singh’s credible fear interview because th e record 21
of the interview was sufficiently reliable, in that the 225 interview was conducted with an interpreter, it was 1
memorialized in a typewritten , question

- and

- answer format, 2
the questions posed were designed to elicit details of Singh’s 3
asylum claim, and Singh’s responses indicated that he 4
understood the questions. See Ming Zhang v. Holder , 585 F.3d 5

715, 724

- 25 (2d Cir. 2009). Singh testified that the 6
beatings he suffered occurred in the fourth and fifth months 7

of 2015

. W hen confronted with his inconsi stent statement at 8

his credible fear interview that he was beaten in the sixth 9

month, Singh changed his testimony to conform with his 10

interview, stating that he was beaten in the fifth and sixth 11

months. T his created a new inconsistency with his interview, 12
in which he had stated that his second beating occurred during 13
the ninth month. Further, his testimony that he was 14

threatened in the fourth and fifth months was inconsistent 15

with his interview statement that he was threatened in the 16
eighth month. 17

Giv en the inconsistency findings , the agency’s adverse 18
credibility determination is supported by substantial 19

evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That 20
determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of 21

removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based 226 on the same factual predicate

. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 1

F.3d 148, 156

- 57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we do not 2
consider the agency’s alternative burden finding. See I

. N

. S

. 3

v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule 4
courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 5
issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 6

they reach.”). 7
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 8

DENIED . All pending motions and applications are DE NIED and 9

stays VACATED. 10

FOR THE COURT: 11 Catherine O ’Hagan Wolfe 12 Clerk of Court 13 14