20-210

Singh v. Garland

BIA

Cassin, IJ

A205 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. 

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 12th 4 day of April, two thousand twenty-two.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 DENNY CHIN,

9 MICHAEL H. PARK,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 HARPREET SINGH,

14 Petitioner,

15

16 v. 20-210

17 NAC

18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Harpreet Singh, pro se, Copiague, 

24 NY.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 

27 Assistant Attorney General; Carl 

28 McIntyre, Assistant Director; 
2

1 Andrew Oliveira, Trial Attorney, 

2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 

3 United States Department of 

4 Justice, Washington, DC.

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioner, Harpreet Singh, a native and citizen of

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

11 BIA affirming an April 9, 2018 decision of an Immigration 

12 Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, 

13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Harpreet Singh, No. A205 942

15 061 (B.I.A. Dec. 26, 2019), aff’g No. A205 942 061 (Immig. 

16 Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 9, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 

17 with the underlying facts and procedural history.

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

19 we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. 

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

21 review adverse credibility determinations for substantial 

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

23 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the 
3

1 totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 

2 trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . 

3 the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written 

4 and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each 

5 such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with 

6 other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an 

7 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of 

8 the applicant’s claim . . . .” 8 U.S.C. 

9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s 

10 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 

11 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder 

12 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin

13 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei 

14 Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. 

15 Substantial evidence supports the determination that 

16 Singh was not credible as to his claim that he was twice 

17 attacked in India on account of his political opinion and 

18 required medical treatment after the first attack. First, 

19 the record contains inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony 

20 and other evidence. Singh stated that a doctor treated him 

21 at home after a 2012 attack, and he submitted affidavits from 
4

1 his mother and his local village head confirming this. But 

2 his physician’s affidavit stated that the physician treated 

3 Singh at a medical clinic, not at home. Singh did not 

4 persuasively explain this inconsistency. See Majidi v. 

5 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must 

6 do more than offer a plausible explanation for his 

7 inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate

8 that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit 

9 his testimony.” (cleaned up)).

10 Second, Singh failed to rehabilitate his credibility with 

11 reliable corroborating evidence. “An applicant’s failure to 

12 corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, 

13 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an 

14 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already 

15 been called into question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 

16 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency was entitled to accord 

17 little weight to affidavits from Singh’s mother and village 

18 head because they were prepared by unavailable, interested 

19 parties for the purpose of Singh’s hearing. See Y.C. v. 

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

21 decision to afford little weight to petitioner’s husband’s 
5

1 letter because it was unsworn and from an interested witness). 

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

3 who took him home after his alleged attack. 

4 Considering the inconsistent evidence regarding Singh’s 

5 medical treatment and the lack of reliable corroboration 

6 regarding his past harm and resulting treatment, substantial 

7 evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

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

9 Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 

10 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency 

11 might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ was compelled 

12 to find him credible.”). That determination is dispositive 

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

14 relief because all three claims arose from the same factual 

15 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d 

16 Cir. 2006).

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

18 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

19 stays VACATED.

20 FOR THE COURT: 

21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

22 Clerk of Court