20

- 210 Singh v. Garland BIA Cassin , IJ A 20 5 942 061 

### 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 1**  **2 t**  **h da**  **y of A**  **p r**  **i l**  **, two thousand twenty** 
**- two** 

**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS ,**  7 **DENNY CHIN ,**  8 **MICHAEL H. PARK ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

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

**- 210**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Harpreet Singh , p ro s e, Copiague , 23 NY

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Jeffrey Bossert Clark , Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General ; Carl 27 McIntyre , Assistant Director ; 282 Andrew Oliveira , Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, Washington, 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 , Harpreet Singh , a native and citizen of 9

India , seeks review of a December 26, 2019 decision of the 10

BIA affirming an April 9, 2018 decision of an Immigration 11
Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh ’s application for asylum, 12
withholding of removal, and relief under the C onvention 13
Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re Harpreet S i ngh , No. A 20 5 942 14

061 (B.I.A. Dec. 26 , 20 19 ), aff’g No. A 205 942 061 (Immig. 15

Ct. N.Y.C

. Apr. 9, 2018 ). We assume the parties ’ familiarity 16
with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17

“When the BIA summarily affirms the decision of an IJ, 18

w e review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination

. 19
Shunfu Li v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008)

. We 20
review adverse credibility determination s for substantial 21

evidence

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

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

. “Considering the 233 totality of the circumstances , and all relevant factors, a 1
trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . 2

the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written 3
and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each 4
such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with 5

other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an 6
inconsistency, i naccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of 7
the applicant’s claim

. . . .” 8 U.S.C. 8

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “ We defer

. . . to an IJ’s 9
credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 10
circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder 11

cou ld make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin 12
v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) ; accord Hong Fei 13

Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. 14

S ubstantial evidence supports the determination that 15
Singh was not credible as to his claim that he was twice 16
attacked in India on account of his political opinion and 17
required medical treatment after the first attack

. First, 18

the record contains inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony 19

and other evid ence . Singh stated that a doctor treated him 20

at home after a 2012 attack, and he submitted affidavits from 214 his mother and his local village head confirming this. But 1

h is physician’s affidavit stated that the physician treated 2
Singh at a medical clinic , n ot at home

. Singh did not 3
persuasively explain this inconsistency

. See Majidi v. 4

Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“ A petitioner must 5
do more than offer a plausible explanation for his 6

inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate 7

that a reasonable fact

- finder would be compelled to credit 8
his testimony.” ( cleaned up )). 9

Second, Singh failed to rehabilitate his credibility with 10

reliable corroborating evidence. “ An applicant’s failure to 11
corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, 12
because the absence of corroboration in general makes an 13
applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already 14
been called into question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 15
268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). T he agency was entitled to accord 16

li ttle weight to affidavits from Singh’s mother and village 17
head because they were prepared by unavailable, interested 18
parties for the purpose of Singh’s hearing. S ee Y.C. v. 19

Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to agency 20

decision to afford l ittle weight to petitioner ’ s husband ’ s 215 letter because it was unsworn and from an interested witness)

. 1
Further, Singh did not submit an affidavit from his friend 2

who took him home after his alleged attack

. 3
Considering the inconsisten t evidence regarding Singh’s 4

medical treatment and the lack of reliable corroboration 5
regarding his past harm and resulting treatment , substantial 6
evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility 7

determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 8

Lin , 534 F .3d at 167 ; see also Likai Gao v. Barr , 968 F.3d 9
137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency 10
might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ was compelled 11

to find him credible.”)

. That determination is dispositive 12

of Singh’s claims for asy lum, withholding of removal and CAT 13

relief because all three claims arose from the same factual 14
predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d 15

Cir. 2006). 16
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17

DENIED

. All pending motions and a pplications are DENIED and 18

stays VACATED. 19

FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 21 Clerk of Court 22