18-1957

Singh v. Barr

BIA

Christensen, IJ

A208 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 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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 16th 4 day of September, two thousand twenty.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

8 REENA RAGGI,

9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 DMARMINDER SINGH, AKA DHARMINDER 

14 SINGH,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 18-1957

18 NAC

19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 _____________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONER: Deepti Vithal, Richmond Hill, NY.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 

27 General; Jonathan A. Robbins, 

28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Dana M. 

29 Camilleri, Trial Attorney, Office 

* The 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

1 of Immigration Litigation, United 

2 States Department of Justice, 

3 Washington, DC.

4

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 petition for review 

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Dmarminder Singh, a native and citizen of 

10 India, seeks review of a June 13, 2018, decision of the BIA 

11 affirming an August 7, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge 

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

13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

14 (“CAT”). In re Dmarminder Singh, No. A208 569 583 (B.I.A. 

15 June 13, 2018), aff’g No. A208 569 583 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 

16 Aug. 7, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

17 underlying facts and procedural history.

18 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s 

19 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 

20 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 

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

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

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

24
3

1 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 

2 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 

3 determination on . . . the consistency between the 

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

5 the internal consistency of each such statement, the 

6 consistency of such statements with other evidence of 

7 record . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, 

8 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s 

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

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

11 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence supports the 

12 agency’s determination that Singh was not credible as to his 

13 claim that members of the Akali Dal Badal party beat him twice 

14 in India on account of his membership in the Shiromani Akali 

15 Dal Amritsar Party. 

16 The agency reasonably relied on Singh’s inconsistent 

17 statements regarding whether police in India detained and 

18 harmed him when he reported being beaten by members of the 

19 Badal Party. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh did 

20 not provide compelling explanations for this inconsistency. 

21 See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A 

22 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 
4

1 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 

2 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled

3 to credit his testimony.” (internal citation and quotation 

4 marks omitted)).

5 The agency also reasonably found that Singh’s inability 

6 to recall the name of his political party impugned his 

7 credibility because it was inconsistent with his claim that 

8 he was targeted and beaten on account of his active membership 

9 in that party. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh 

10 attempted to explain that he could not recall the name of his 

11 party because his beatings had impacted his memory. The IJ 

12 was not compelled to credit that explanation because Singh 

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

14 to recall the name of the party that targeted him. See 

15 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.

16 The agency also reasonably relied on the inconsistency

17 between Singh’s statements during his credible fear interview 

18 and his hearing testimony regarding when he was threatened 

19 and beaten in India. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). As 

20 an initial matter, the agency did not err in relying on the 

21 record of Singh’s credible fear interview because the record 

22 of the interview was sufficiently reliable, in that the 
5

1 interview was conducted with an interpreter, it was 

2 memorialized in a typewritten, question-and-answer format, 

3 the questions posed were designed to elicit details of Singh’s 

4 asylum claim, and Singh’s responses indicated that he 

5 understood the questions. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 

6 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). Singh testified that the 

7 beatings he suffered occurred in the fourth and fifth months 

8 of 2015. When confronted with his inconsistent statement at 

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

10 month, Singh changed his testimony to conform with his 

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

12 months. This created a new inconsistency with his interview,

13 in which he had stated that his second beating occurred during 

14 the ninth month. Further, his testimony that he was 

15 threatened in the fourth and fifth months was inconsistent 

16 with his interview statement that he was threatened in the 

17 eighth month. 

18 Given the inconsistency findings, the agency’s adverse 

19 credibility determination is supported by substantial 

20 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That 

21 determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of 

22 removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based 
6

1 on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 

2 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we do not 

3 consider the agency’s alternative burden finding. See I.N.S.

4 v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule 

5 courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 

6 issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 

7 they reach.”). 

8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

9 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

10 stays VACATED.

11 FOR THE COURT: 

12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe

13 Clerk of Court

14