16-4016

Singh v. Sessions

BIA

Poczter, IJ

A206 035 040

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 United 

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 

on the 10th 4 day of September, two thousand eighteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

8 REENA RAGGI,

9 DENNY CHIN,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12 SARBJIT SINGH,

13 Petitioner,

14

15 v. 16-4016

16 NAC

17 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 

18 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

19 Respondent.

20 _____________________________________

21

22 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, 

23 NY.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

26 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 

27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jesse D. 

28 Lorenz, Trial Attorney, Office of 

29 Immigration Litigation, United 

30 States Department of Justice, 

31 Washington, DC.
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Sarbjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, 

6 seeks review of a November 10, 2016, decision of the BIA 

7 affirming a November 16, 2015, decision of an Immigration 

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

9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sarbjit Singh, No. A206 035 

11 040 (B.I.A. Nov. 10, 2016), aff’g No. A206 035 040 (Immig. 

12 Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 16, 2015). We assume the parties’ 

13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 

14 in this case.

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 

16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 

17 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 

18 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 

19 are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Xiu Xia Lin v. 

20 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 

21 Considering the totality of the 

22 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 

23 trier of fact may base a credibility 

24 determination on the demeanor, candor, or 

25 responsiveness of the applicant . . . , 

26 the consistency between the applicant’s . 
3

1 . . written and oral statements . . . , 

2 the internal consistency of each such 

3 statement, [and] the consistency of such 

4 statements with other evidence of record . 

5 . . without regard to whether an 

6 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood 

7 goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim. 

8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d 

9 at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

10 determination that Singh was not credible as to his claim 

11 that Congress Party and Shiromani Akali Dal Badal Party 

12 members had attacked and threatened him on account of his 

13 membership in the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party. 

14 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies in 

15 Singh’s evidence regarding who helped him escape an attack, 

16 whether police attempted to extort money from him when he 

17 reported a threat, and what party was behind the continuing 

18 threats to his family. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 

19 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67 & n.3. Singh did not provide 

20 compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. See 

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

22 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 

23 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 

24 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled

25 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks 

26 omitted)). Moreover, when confronted with his inconsistent 
4

1 evidence regarding the party responsible for the threats 

2 against him, Singh became evasive and unresponsive lending 

3 further support to the agency’s adverse credibility 

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

5 Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d 

6 Cir. 2006).

7 Given the inconsistency and demeanor findings, the 

8 agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 

9 substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That 

10 determination is dispositive of Singh’s claims for asylum, 

11 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three 

12 claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. 

13 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

15 DENIED. 

16 FOR THE COURT: 

17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk