19

- 3605 Singh v. Garland BIA Baumgarten , IJ A 215 669 519 **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 APP**  **ENDIX 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 a**  **t the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,**  3 **on the 1**  **7 t**  **h da**  **y of D**  **e c**  **e m**  **b e**  **r , two thousand**  **twenty**
**- two** 

**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES ,**  7 **R OBERT D. SACK**  **,** 8 **R EENA RAGGI**  **,** 9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **NAVJOT SINGH**  **,** 13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 19** 

**- 3605**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Khagendra Gharti

- Chhetry, Esq ., 23 New York , NY

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Jeffrey Bossert Clark , Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General ; 27 Anthony P. Nicastro , Assistant 28 Director ; Ilana J. Snyder , Trial 292 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 D C. 4
UPON 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 Navjot Singh , a native and citizen of India , 9

seeks review of a n October 4 , 2019 , decision of the BIA 10
affirming a n April 11, 2019 , decision of an Immigration Judge 11

(“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 12
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re Navjot 13
Singh , No. A 215 669 519 (B.I.A. Oct. 4 , 201 9 ), aff’g No. A 14

215 669 519 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Apr. 11 , 201 9 ). We assume 15
the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 16
procedural history. 17

We have review ed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 18

BIA and do not consider the findings that the BIA did not 19
rely on

. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 20
F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the adverse 21
credibility determination for substantial evidence. See 223 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 1
67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 2
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 3
relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 4

determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 5
the applicant

. . . , the consistency between the applicant’s 6

or witness’s written a nd oral statements . . . , the internal 7
consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of 8

such statements with other evidence of record . . . without 9
regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood 10
goes to the heart of the applicant ’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 11

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)

. “We d efer . . . to an IJ’s credibility 12
determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, 13
it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder could make such an 14
adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Muka sey , 534 15

F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) ; accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d 16

at 76. The agency’s determination that Singh was not 17

credible as to his claim that he was threatened and assaulted 18
by Bharatiya Janata Party members on account of his political 19
opinion and religion is supported by substantial evidence

. 204 The agency reasonably relied on Singh’s demeanor and lack 1
of responsiveness. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). We defer 2
to such a finding, especially where, as here, there are also 3
specific finding s of inconsistent testimony. See Majidi v. 4

Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) ( noting that “a 5

fact

- finder who assesses testimony together with witness 6
demeanor is in the best position to discern . . . whether a 7

witness who hesitated in a response was nevertheless 8
attempting truthfully to recount what he recalled of key 9

events” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) ); see 10

also Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 453 F.3d 99, 109 11
(2d Cir. 2006) (“We can be . . . more confident in o ur review 12
of observations about an applicant’s demeanor where . . . 13
they are supported by specific examples of inconsistent 14
testimony.”). And the record supports the IJ’s findings that 15
Singh’s testimony shifted and was at times lacking detail. 16
For exampl e, Singh’s testimony about whether he met with a 17
smuggler and knew the identity of the smuggler shifted 18
throughout the hearing. Singh’s testimony was also vague 19
concerning his political activities, and shifting concerning 205 whether he knew any of the farmer s who helped him after his 1

second attack. 2
The agency also reasonably relied on inconsistencies 3
between Singh’s testimony and the record of his border 4
interview concerning how he crossed the border, where his 5
passport was taken from him and when it would be returned, 6
and what money he had with him. See 8 U.S.C. 7

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh does not dispute the reliability 8
or contents of the border interview record, which “bears 9

sufficient indicia of reliab ility

. ” Ming Zhang v. Holder , 10
585 F.3d 715, 721

– 22, 725 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency was not 11
compelled to credit Singh’s explanation that he may have spent 12
the $1,000 he brought from India on personal expenses during 13
his trip because he testified that he did not spend any money 14

while in Mexico

. See Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80

- 81 (“A petitioner 15
must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his 16

inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate 17

that a reasonable fact

- finder would be compelled to credit 18
his testimony.” (internal quotation ma rks omitted)). 19

These inconsistency and demeanor findings constitute 20

s ubstantial evidence for the adverse credibility 216 determination

. See Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 76; Xiu Xia 1

Lin , 534 F.3d at 165

– 66. 1 That determination is dispositive 2
of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection because 3
the claims were based on the same factual predicate. See 4

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

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006)

. 5
For the foregoing reasons, the petition fo r review is 6

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 7
stays VACATED. 8

FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 10 Clerk of Court 11

1 We do not r each the agency’s other credibility finding s bec ause the findings discussed above constitute substantial evidence for the adverse credibility determination. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 33 8

– 3 9 (2d Cir. 2006) (declining to remand despite error where substantial evidence supported the determination)

. Because the adverse credibility determination is dispositive, we do not reach the alternative determination that, even if credible, Singh failed to meet his burden of proof. 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.”).