20

- 1191 Singh v. Garland BIA Poczter , IJ A 208 931 006 

### 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** 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 2**  **8 t**  **h da**  **y of M**  **a r**  **c h**  **, two thousand twenty** 
**- two** 

**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR.**  **,** 7 **DENNIS JACOBS ,**  8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **GURJASPREET SINGH**  **,** 13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 20** 

**- 1191**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Dalbir Singh & Associates , New 23 York , NY

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Jeffrey Bossert Clark , Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General ; Holly 27 M. Smith , Senior Litigation 282 Counsel ; Brett F. Kinney , 1 Attorne y , Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 D C. 5

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of th is petition for review of a 6
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 8

is DENIED

. 9

Petitioner Gurjaspreet Singh , a native and citizen o f 10

India , seeks review of a March 13, 2020 , decision of the BIA 11
affirming a n April 16, 2018 , decision of an Immigration Judge 12
(“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 13
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re 14
Gurjaspreet Singh , No. A 208 931 006 (B.I.A. March 13, 2020 ), 15
aff’g No. A 208 931 006 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 16 , 2018 ). 16
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 17

and procedural history

. 18

We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 19

BIA

. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 20
520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 21

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

Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing 23
adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence)

. 243 “Considering 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

. . . written and oral statements

. . . , the 4
internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency 5

of suc h statements with other evidence of 6

record

. . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, 7
inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s 8
claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. 9

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer

. . . to an IJ’s 10

cre dibility determination unless

. . . it is plain that no 11

reasonable fact

- finder could make such an adverse credibility 12
ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 13

2008); accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial 14
evidence supports th e agency’s determination that Singh was 15
not credible as to his claim that he was twice attacked by 16
members of rival political parties on account of his support 17

for the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party

. 18

The agency reasonably relied on several omissions from 19
Singh’s application and his inconsistent testimony regarding 20
the severity of his injuries. See 8 U.S.C. 214 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh testified that he received 1

medical attention after both attacks and that his father 2
accompanied him to a medical clin ic both times ; but he omitted 3

these facts from the detailed written statement included in 4
his application. While the omission of minor medical 5

treatment will not always support an adverse credibility 6
determination, the IJ reasonably relied on these omissions 7

because Singh volunteered the information on direct 8
examination, his medical treatment was substantial (two 9
different shots, pills, and a lotion, and a two

- hour visit 10
after the second attack), and when he attempted to explain 11
the omission, he provided inconsistent testimony about the 12
severity of his injuries

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

– 13

8 2. And those inconsistent explanations about the severity 14

of his injuries further undermined his claim and did not 15
explain the omissions

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 16
Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A 17
petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 18

for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 19

demonstrate that a reasonable fact

- finder would be compelled 20
to credit his testimony.” (quotation marks omitted)). The 215 agency also reasonably relied on Singh’s omission from his 1
application of his claim that his father accompanie d him to 2
the police station when he attempt ed to report the first 3

attack , particularly as the application indicated that he 4
went to the police stat ion directly after the attack

. See 8 5

U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 6

Second, the adverse credibility determination finds 7
further support in the lack of reliable corroboration. “An 8
applicant’s failure to corroborate his

. . . testimony may 9
bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in 10
general makes an applicant unabl e to rehabilitate testimony 11
that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v. 12

Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) . The agency 13
reasonably afforded Singh’s supporting letters minimal weight 14
because Singh provided inconsistent testimony about how he 15
obtained the letter from the party president and the letters 16
contained errors and omissions that called into question 17
their veracity. See Y.C. v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d 18
Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of 19

the weight to be afforded an applicant’s documentary 20

evidence” ). 216 In sum, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 1
adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. 2

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167; Biao Yang , 3

496 F.3d at 273. This determ ination is dispositive of 4
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all 5

three forms of relief are based on the same discredited 6
factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 7
57 (2d Cir. 2006)

. 8
For the foregoing reasons, the peti tion 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