2 1

- 6 093 Singh v. Garland BIA Poczter , IJ A 20 5 833 485 

### 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 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 1 Circuit, held at the Thu rgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2 Square, in the City of New York, on the 1 8 t h da y of A p r i l , two thousand 3 twenty

- t hree

. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 MICHAEL H. PARK , 7 STEVEN J. MENASHI , 8 ALISON J. NATHAN , 9 Circuit Judges. 10

_____________________________________ 11 12 PAWANDEEP SINGH , 13 Petitioner , 14 15

v. 2 1

- 6093 16 NAC 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 18 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL , 19 R espondent

. 20

_____________________________________ 212 FOR PETITIONER : Suraj Raj Singh , Esq. , Richmond Hill , N Y

. 1 2 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton , Acting Assistant Attorney 3 General; Holly M. Smith , Assistant Director ; 4 Christin M. Whitacre , Trial Attorney , Office 5 of Immigration Litigation, United States 6 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 7 8 U PON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 9
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 10
DECREED that the petitio n for review is DENIED. 11

Petitioner Pawandeep Singh , a native and citizen of India , seeks review of a 12
January 29 , 202 1 decision of the BIA affirming a July 13 , 201 8 decision of an 13

I mmigration Judge (“IJ”) d enying his application for asylum, withholding of 14
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 15
Pawandeep Singh , No. A 205 833 485 (B.I.A. Jan

. 29 , 202 1 ), aff’g No. A 205 833 485 16
(Immig r . Ct. N.Y.C

. July 13 , 201 8 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17
underlying facts and procedural history. 18

We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e. , minus the 19
specific findings that the BIA declined to rely on

. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t 20
of Just

. , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005)

. “ We review

. . . adverse credibility 21
findings[] under the substantial evidence standard, ” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 223 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive 1
unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2
contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all rele vant factors, a 4
trier of fact may base a credibility determination on

. . . the consistency between 5
the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and 6
whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the 7

sta tements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the 8
consistency of such statements with other evidence of record

. . . , and any 9
inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an 10
inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant ’ s claim, 11
or any other relevant factor .” Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “ We defer .

. . to an IJ’s 12
credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain 13

that no reasonable fact

- finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu 14
Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 15

76. Singh asserted that he is Sikh and a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal 16

Amritsar political party and that the police and members of the Congress Party 17

first threatened him in February 2011 , and then abducted and beat him in June 184 2011 beca use of his political activities

. Substantial evidence supports the adverse 1
credibility determination. 2
The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony and 3

between his testimony and application

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh 4
gave inconsistent descriptions of the alleged abduction : his written statement 5
provided that he recognized his abductors as members of the Congress Party; but 6
he testified that he was abducted by people in police uniforms. The agency did 7
not err in concluding that the fact that his abductors wore police uniforms is a fact 8
that an applicant would lik ely include in an application, particularly where, as 9

here, Singh noted at the end of his written statement that he believed the police 10
and Congress Party were “involved together.” S ee Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 78 11
(“ [T] he probative value of a witness’s pr ior silence on particular facts depends on 12
whether those facts are ones the witness would reasonably have been expected to 13

disclose

. ”). The agency was not required to accept Singh’s explanation that he 14

mentioned some connection between the Congress Party and the police even if his 15
written statement did not identify his abductors as police. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 16
430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible 17
explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate 185 that a reasonable fact

- finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” 1
(quotation marks omitted)). T he agency also reasonably relied on an inconsistency 2
regarding the threats Singh received: Singh’s written statement reported threats in 3
February 2011, and stated that months passed without incident before his 4
abduction in June; but he testified about receiving thr eats in March and May of 5
that year

. 6
The agency also reasonably relied on inconsistencies between Singh’s 7
statements and his supporting documents. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh 8
submitted two versions of supporting letters from his mother and best friend, 9
which were inconsistent as to (1) the number of times he was threatened and 10
attacked; (2) when he joined his political party ; and (3) whether he sought help 11
from the police after he was attacked. The IJ reasonably rejected Singh’s 12
explanatio n that the original letters were not read back to their authors in their 13
best language because both letters contain signed verifications that the contents 14

were true and correct to the best of the declarants ’ knowledge. See Majidi , 430 F.3d 15

at 80. The agency is permitted to rely on inconsistencies between an applicant’s 16
statement and statements of his witnesses, particularly whe n , as here, there are 17

direct inconsistencies in those statements

. See Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 78

. 186 The agency also relied on Singh’s failure to provide reliable corroborating 1

evidence. “A n applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear on 2
credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant 3
unable to rehabilitate testimony that ha s already been called into question.” Biao 4
Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). T he agency did not err because 5
the original letters from Singh’ s mother , friend , and the head of his village were 6

inconsistent with his own statements, and the IJ was not required to credit the 7

amended letters

. See Y.C. v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) ( “We ge nerally 8
defer to the agency ’ s evaluation of the weight to be afforded an applicant ’ s 9
documentary evidence

. ”). Additionally, the letter from Singh’s political party did 10
not mention the past harm he allege d

. 11
In sum, taken together the inconsistencies and omissions and the lack of 12
reliable corroboration provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility 13

d etermination. See Likai Gao v. Barr , 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a 14
single inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ was 15
compelled to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even 16
more forcefully. ”); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167

. Although the BIA concluded that 17
Singh waived withholding of removal and CAT relief by not arguing those claims 187 on appeal, the IJ denied all relief based on the adverse credibility determination , 1

which Singh did challenge on appeal . There was no independent basis for the 2
denial of his withholding and CAT claims that he could have raised before the 3

BIA. However, remand is not warranted to correct this error because the adverse 4
credibility determination is dispositive given that Singh’s claims for asylum, 5
withholding of removal, and CAT relief were all based on the same factual 6
predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006 ). 7
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending 8

mo tions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 9

FOR THE COURT: 10 Catherine O ’Hagan Wolfe , 11 Clerk of Court 12