20-1191

Singh v. Garland

BIA

Poczter, IJ

A208 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.

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 28th 4 day of March, two thousand twenty-two.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

8 DENNIS JACOBS,

9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 GURJASPREET SINGH,

14 Petitioner,

15

16 v. 20-1191

17 NAC

18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Dalbir Singh & Associates, New 

24 York, NY.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 

27 Assistant Attorney General; Holly 

28 M. Smith, Senior Litigation 
2

1 Counsel; Brett F. Kinney,

2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 

3 Litigation, United States 

4 Department of Justice, Washington, 

5 DC.

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

9 is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Gurjaspreet Singh, a native and citizen of

11 India, seeks review of a March 13, 2020, decision of the BIA 

12 affirming an April 16, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge 

13 (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 

15 Gurjaspreet Singh, No. A208 931 006 (B.I.A. March 13, 2020), 

16 aff’g No. A208 931 006 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 16, 2018).

17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 

18 and procedural history.

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

20 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 

21 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 

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

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

24 adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence).
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 . . . written and oral statements . . . , the 

5 internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency 

6 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). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s 

11 credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no 

12 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility 

13 ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 

14 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial 

15 evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh was 

16 not credible as to his claim that he was twice attacked by 

17 members of rival political parties on account of his support 

18 for the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party. 

19 The agency reasonably relied on several omissions from 

20 Singh’s application and his inconsistent testimony regarding 

21 the severity of his injuries. See 8 U.S.C. 
4

1 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh testified that he received 

2 medical attention after both attacks and that his father 

3 accompanied him to a medical clinic both times; but he omitted 

4 these facts from the detailed written statement included in 

5 his application. While the omission of minor medical 

6 treatment will not always support an adverse credibility 

7 determination, the IJ reasonably relied on these omissions 

8 because Singh volunteered the information on direct 

9 examination, his medical treatment was substantial (two 

10 different shots, pills, and a lotion, and a two-hour visit 

11 after the second attack), and when he attempted to explain 

12 the omission, he provided inconsistent testimony about the 

13 severity of his injuries. Cf. Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 78–

14 82. And those inconsistent explanations about the severity 

15 of his injuries further undermined his claim and did not 

16 explain the omissions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 

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

18 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 

19 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 

20 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled

21 to credit his testimony.” (quotation marks omitted)). The 
5

1 agency also reasonably relied on Singh’s omission from his 

2 application of his claim that his father accompanied him to 

3 the police station when he attempted to report the first 

4 attack, particularly as the application indicated that he 

5 went to the police station directly after the attack. See 8 

6 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

7 Second, the adverse credibility determination finds 

8 further support in the lack of reliable corroboration. “An 

9 applicant’s failure to corroborate his . . . testimony may 

10 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in 

11 general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony 

12 that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v. 

13 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency 

14 reasonably afforded Singh’s supporting letters minimal weight 

15 because Singh provided inconsistent testimony about how he 

16 obtained the letter from the party president and the letters 

17 contained errors and omissions that called into question 

18 their veracity. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d 

19 Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of 

20 the weight to be afforded an applicant’s documentary 

21 evidence”). 
6

1 In sum, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

2 adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. 

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

4 496 F.3d at 273. This determination is dispositive of 

5 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all 

6 three forms of relief are based on the same discredited 

7 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–

8 57 (2d Cir. 2006).

9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

10 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

11 stays VACATED.

12 FOR THE COURT: 

13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

14 Clerk of Court