16

- 4016 Singh v. Sessions BIA Poczter , IJ A 206 035 040 

### 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United**  2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,**  3 **on the 10**  **th da**  **y of September**  **, two thousand eight**  **een .**  4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR.**  **,** 7 **REENA RAGGI ,**  8 **DENNY CHIN ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 **SARBJIT SINGH**  **,** 12 **Petitioner ,**  13 14

**v. 16** 
**- 4016**  15 **NAC** 16 **JEFF ERSON B.**  **SESSIONS ,**  **III,** 17 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 18 **R espondent**  **.** 19

**_____________________________________** 20 21 **FOR PETITIONER**  **:** Jaspreet Singh , Jackson Heights , 22 NY

. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler , Acting Assistant 25 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith , 26 Senior Litigation Counsel ; Jesse D. 27 Lorenz , Trial Attorney , Office of 28 Immigration Litigation , United 29 States Department of Justice, 30 Washington, DC. 312 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 3

is DENIED. 4

Petitioner Sarb jit Singh , a native and citizen of India , 5

seeks review of a November 10 , 2016 , decision of the BIA 6
affirming a November 16 , 2015 , decision of an I mmigration 7

Judge (“IJ”) d enying Singh’s application for asylum, 8
withholding of removal , and relief under the Convention 9
Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sarbjit Singh , No. A 206 035 10

040 (B.I.A. Nov. 10 , 2016 ), aff’g No. A 206 035 040 (Immig. 11
Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 16 , 2015 ). We assume the parties’ 12
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedur al his tory 13

in this case. 14

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15
both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 16

completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 17
524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 18

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

Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165

- 66 (2d Cir. 2008). 20

C onsidering the totality of the 21 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 22 trier of fact may base a credibility 23 determination on the demeano r, candor, or 24 responsiveness of the applicant

. . . , 25 the consistency between the applicant’s . 263 . . written and oral statements . . . , 1 the internal consistency of each such 2 statement, [and] the consistency of such 3 statements with other evidence of record

. 4

. . without regard to whether an 5 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood 6 go es to the heart of the applicant’s claim. 7
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d 8

at 163

- 64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 9

determination that Singh was not credible as to his claim 10

that Congress Party and Shiromani Akali Dal Badal Party 11

members had attacked and threatened him on account of his 12
membership in the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party

. 13
The agency reasonably relied on inconsis tencies in 14
Singh’s evidence regarding who helped him escape an attack, 15
whether police attempted to extort money from him when he 16
reported a threat, and what party was behind the continuing 17
threats to his family. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 18

Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165

- 67 & n.3. Singh did not provide 19
compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. See 20
Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A 21
petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 22

for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 23

demonstrate that a reasonable fact

- finder would be compelled 24
to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks 25

omitted)). Moreover, when confronted with his inconsistent 264 evidence regarding the party responsible for the threats 1
against him, Singh became evasive and unresponsive lending 2
further support to the agency’s adverse credibility 3

determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also 4
Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d 5

Cir. 2006)

. 6

Given the inconsistency and demeanor findings , the 7
agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 8

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

determination is dispositive of Singh’s claims for asylum, 10
withholding of removal, and CAT relie f because all three 11
claims are based on the same factual predicate

. See Paul v. 12

Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

- 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 13
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 14

DENIED. 15

FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 17