20

- 333 Singh v. Garland BIA Poczter , IJ A 208 455 405 

### 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**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thu**  **rgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 26**  **th da**  **y of April**  **, two thousand twenty** 

**** 4 **three**

**.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON ,**  8 **C hief**  **Judge ,**  9 **STEVEN J. MENASHI ,**  10 **EUNICE C. LEE ,**  11 **Circuit Judges.** 12

**_____________________________________** 13 14 **HA R**  **JOT SINGH,**  **AKA HWJOT SINGH**  **,** 15 **Petitioner ,**  16 17
**v. 20** 

**- 333**  18 **NAC** 19 **MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED**  20 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 21 **R espondent** 

**.** 22

**_____________________________________** 23 24 25 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Dalbir Singh , Esq., Dalbir Singh 26 & Assoc., PC, New York , NY

. 27 282 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Jeffrey Bossert Clark , Acting 1 Assistant Attorney General; 2 Bernard A. Joseph , Senior 3 Litigation Counsel ; Erik R. Quick , 4 Trial Attorney , Office of 5 Immigration Litigation , United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 9 U PON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 12

is DENIED. 13

Petitioner Ha r jot Singh , a native and citizen of India , 14

seeks review of a December 30 , 2019 , decision of the BIA 15
affirming an April 9 , 2018 , decision of an I mmigration Judge 16

(“IJ”) d enying Singh ’s application for asylum, withholding of 17

removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture 18

(“CAT”). In re Harjot Singh , No. A 208 455 405 (B.I.A. Dec. 19
30, 2019 ), aff’g No. A 2 08 455 405 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 20

9 , 2018 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 21
underlying facts and procedural his tory. 22
Under the circumstances, we have consider ed both the IJ’s 23
and the BIA’s opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 24

Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the 25
agency’s adverse credibility determination “under the 26

substantial evidence standard,” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 273 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) , and “the administrative findings 1
of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 2

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. 3

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)

. “Considering the totality of the 4
circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 5
base a credibility determination on

. . . the consistency 6
between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral 7
statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such 8

statement , [and] the consistency of such statements with 9

other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an 10

inconsistenc y, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of 11
the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” Id. 12

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility 13
determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, 14
it is plain that no reas onable fact

- finder could make such an 15
adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 16

F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008)

. 17
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination 18

that Singh was not credible as to his claim that members of 19

the Bharatiya Janata Party and Akali Dal Badal Party beat him 20

and threatened to kill him on account of his work for the 21
Akali Dal Mann Party. The agency reasonably relied on 224 inconsistenc ies in Singh’s evidence regarding whether he 1
reported a death threat to police, how police responded to 2
the report of his attack, and whether his family members were 3

harassed

. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). He failed to 4
provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. 5
See Majidi v. Gonzales , 43 0 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A 6
petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 7

for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 8

demonstrate that a reasonable fact

- finder would be compelled 9
to credit his testimony.” ( internal quotation marks 10

omitted)). 11

The agency also reasonably found that the striking 12
similarities between Singh’s supporting affidavits impugned 13
his credibility

. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Just

. , 489 14
F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007) ( “[T]his court has . . . f irmly 15
embraced the commonsensical notion that striking similarities 16

between affidavits are an indication that the statements are 17

‘ canned. ’ ”); Singh v. BIA , 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006 ) 18

( upholding agency’s reliance on “n early identical language in 19
the written affidavits allegedly provided by different 20
people ”)

. Singh’s explanation that the notary might have 21
been the source of the identical language does not compel a 225 contrary conclusion

. S ee Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80

– 81

. 1

The inconsistenc ies and strikingly similar affidavits 2
provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility 3

determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); s ee also 4

Likai Gao v. Barr , 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) 5
(“[E]ven a single inconsistency m ight preclude an alien from 6
showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible. 7
Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even more 8
forcefully.” )

. Th e adverse credibility determination is 9
dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief 10

because all three claims are based on the same factual 11
predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d 12

Cir. 2006). 13
For the foregoing reasons, th e petition for review is 14

DENIED . All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 15

stays VACATED. 16

FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O ’Hagan Wolfe , 18 Clerk of Court 19