16-2574 Singh v. Sessions BIA Cheng, IJ A200 813 945 

### 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 for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **9 th**  **day of February , two thousand eighteen.**  4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 7 **REENA RAGGI,** 8 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **KRISHNA PRAKAS SINGH,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v.** 16-2574 16 **NAC** 17 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Khagendra Gharti Chhetry, New York, 23 NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Jessica E. Burns, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Juria L. 28 Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 322 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 petition for review is 3

DENIED. 4 Petitioner Krishna Prakas Singh, a native and citizen of 5 Nepal, seeks review of a June 21, 2016, decision of the BIA 6 affirming a January 22, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge 7 (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of 8 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 9 (“CAT”). In re Krishna Prakas Singh, No. A 200 813 945 (B.I.A. 10 June 21, 2016), aff’g No. A 200 813 945 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 11 January 22, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 12 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 14 the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales , 15 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are 16 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin 17 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 18 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 19 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on 20 inconsistencies or omissions in an applicant’s oral and written 21 statements and other record evidence, regardless of whether any 223 such discrepancies “go[] to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 2 166-67. “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination 3 unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could 4 make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d 5 at 167. 6 The adverse credibility determination is supported by 7 substantial evidence given the inconsistencies between Singh’s 8 testimony at the merits hearing, his application, and his 9 credible fear interview. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 10 Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. The basis of Singh’s claim was 11 that he was targeted by Maoists for his political activities 12 with the Nepali Congress Party (“NCP”). But Singh was 13 inconsistent about when and how he first encountered the 14 Maoists: he testified at the merits hearing that he was first 15 threatened by the Maoists by telephone in early December 2006; 16 but stated during his credible fear interview that his first 17 contact was when he was called into the Maoist offices. 18 Moreover, he provided differing descriptions of the incident, 19 stating at his interview that he was called in to talk about 20 the Maoists’ intent to recruit his children, but later 21 testifying that the Maoists abducted him from his home. His 224 description also differed as to how long he was held and whether 1 he paid money or had money stolen, and whether and how severely 2 he was beaten. Finally, Singh was also inconsistent as to the 3 alleged incident that caused him to flee Nepal: at the 4 interview, he stated that Maoists interrupted an NCP meeting 5 of 100 to 150 people at his home; but he testified that only 6 10 to 15 people attended the meeting. 7 Singh’s explanations for these inconsistencies do not 8 compel a different result. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 9 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer 10 a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to 11 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable 12 fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” 13 (quotation marks and citation omitted)). He argues that the 14 record shows he consistently stated that the Maoists stole money 15 from him during the abduction. But he stated in his credible 16 fear interview that he gave the money to secure his release, 17 omitted any reference to the theft from his written statement, 18 and testified about it at the hearing only when pressed on 19 cross-examination. See Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 167 20 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Where there are two permissible views of the 21 evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be 225 clearly erroneous. . . . Rather, a reviewing court must defer 1 to that choice so long as the deductions are not illogical or 2 implausible.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 3 Singh also challenges the reliability of the credible fear 4 interview, alleging translator and transcription errors. The 5 agency reasonably concluded that the credible fear interview 6 record was reliable. See Ming Zhang v. Holder , 585 F.3d 715, 7 725-26 (2d Cir. 2009). The questions and answers are 8 typewritten and appear to reflect a verbatim or nearly verbatim 9 account of the questions posed and Singh’s responses; the 10 interview was conducted through a Nepalese interpreter; the 11 interview record reflects that Singh understood the 12 interpreter, i.e., he was responsive to the questions and 13 confirmed that many details were correct; the record contains 14 no signs of coercion; and the questions asked appear designed 15 to elicit an asylum claim (for example, the officer asked Singh 16 follow-up questions regarding his abduction and the events 17 following it). Id. Nor was the agency required to accept 18 Singh’s explanation that he was confused during the interview, 19 given his responsive and coherent answers to the questions 20 asked. See Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80-81. 216 Moreover, as the agency found, Singh had multiple 1 opportunities to flag and explain errors in the initial 2 interview, but despite attaching a portion of the interview 3 record to be his original asylum application, he did not 4 acknowledge the inconsistencies until confronted at the 5 hearing. 6 Given the multiple inconsistencies related to the main 7 grounds of Singh’s asylum claim, substantial evidence supports 8 the adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. 9 § 1158(b)(10(B)(iii); Xian Tuan Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 10 446 F.3d 189, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that “a material 11 inconsistency in an aspect of [an applicant]’s story that served 12

as an example of the very persecution from which he sought asylum 13 . . . afford[s] substantial evidence to support the adverse 14 credibility finding” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 15 Because Singh’s claims were all based on the same factual 16 predicate, the adverse credibility determination is 17 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. 18 Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 20 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 21 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 227 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 1 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 2 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 3 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 4 34.1(b). 5
FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7