20-333

Singh v. Garland

BIA

Poczter, IJ

A208 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.

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 26th 4 day of April, two thousand twenty5 three.

6

7 PRESENT:

8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

9 Chief Judge,

10 STEVEN J. MENASHI,

11 EUNICE C. LEE,

12 Circuit Judges.

13 _____________________________________

14

15 HARJOT SINGH, AKA HWJOT SINGH,

16 Petitioner,

17

18 v. 20-333

19 NAC

20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

22 Respondent.

23 _____________________________________

24

25

26 FOR PETITIONER: Dalbir Singh, Esq., Dalbir Singh 

27 & Assoc., PC, New York, NY.

28
2

1 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 

2 Assistant Attorney General;

3 Bernard A. Joseph, Senior 

4 Litigation Counsel; Erik R. Quick, 

5 Trial Attorney, Office of 

6 Immigration Litigation, United 

7 States Department of Justice, 

8 Washington, DC.

9

10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

13 is DENIED.

14 Petitioner Harjot Singh, a native and citizen of India, 

15 seeks review of a December 30, 2019, decision of the BIA 

16 affirming an April 9, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge 

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

18 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

19 (“CAT”). In re Harjot Singh, No. A208 455 405 (B.I.A. Dec. 

20 30, 2019), aff’g No. A208 455 405 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 

21 9, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

22 underlying facts and procedural history.

23 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s 

24 and the BIA’s opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 

25 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the 

26 agency’s adverse credibility determination “under the 

27 substantial evidence standard,” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 
3

1 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the administrative findings 

2 of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 

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

4 § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Considering the totality of the 

5 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 

6 base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency 

7 between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral 

8 statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such 

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

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

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

12 the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” Id.

13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility 

14 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, 

15 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an 

16 adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 

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

18 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination

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

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

21 and threatened to kill him on account of his work for the 

22 Akali Dal Mann Party. The agency reasonably relied on
4

1 inconsistencies in Singh’s evidence regarding whether he 

2 reported a death threat to police, how police responded to 

3 the report of his attack, and whether his family members were 

4 harassed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). He failed to 

5 provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. 

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

7 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 

8 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 

9 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled

10 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks 

11 omitted)).

12 The agency also reasonably found that the striking 

13 similarities between Singh’s supporting affidavits impugned 

14 his credibility. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 489 

15 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]his court has . . . firmly 

16 embraced the commonsensical notion that striking similarities 

17 between affidavits are an indication that the statements are 

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

19 (upholding agency’s reliance on “nearly identical language in 

20 the written affidavits allegedly provided by different 

21 people”). Singh’s explanation that the notary might have 

22 been the source of the identical language does not compel a 
5

1 contrary conclusion. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80–81. 

2 The inconsistencies and strikingly similar affidavits 

3 provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility 

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

5 Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) 

6 (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from 

7 showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible. 

8 Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even more 

9 forcefully.”). The adverse credibility determination is 

10 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief 

11 because all three claims are based on the same factual 

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

13 Cir. 2006). 

14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

15 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

16 stays VACATED.

17 FOR THE COURT: 

18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

19 Clerk of Court