14-2129 

Singh v. Lynch 

BIA 

Segal, IJ 

A200 892 517

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 for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

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

17th 4 day of June, two thousand fifteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JON O. NEWMAN, 

8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 

9 GERARD E. LYNCH,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 GURPREET SINGH, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 14-2129 

17 NAC 

18 

19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

21 Respondent. 

22 _____________________________________ 

23 

24 

25 

26 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, New 

27 York, NY.

28 
2 

1 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin Mizer, Acting Assistant 

2 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad,

3 Assistant Director; Jennifer R. 

4 Khouri, Trial Attorney, Office of 

5 Immigration Litigation, United States 

6 Department of Justice, Washington D.C. 

7 

8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

11 DENIED. 

12 Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review 

13 of a June 11, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming the January 

14 14, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his 

15 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

16 pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 

17 Gurpreet Singh, No. A200 892 517 (B.I.A. June 11, 2014), aff’g

18 No. A200 892 517 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 14, 2013). We assume 

19 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

20 procedural history in this case. 

21 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 

22 decisions of both the IJ and the BIA “for the sake of 

23 completeness.” See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 

24 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 
3 

1 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 

2 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 

3 For asylum applications like Singh’s, governed by the REAL 

4 ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of 

5 the circumstances,” base a credibility determination on 

6 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other 

7 record evidence “without regard to whether” the inconsistencies 

8 go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 

9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility 

10 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, 

11 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such” a 

12 ruling. Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) 

13 (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

14 adverse credibility determination. 

15 The agency reasonably relied on multiple inconsistencies 

16 in finding Singh not credible. For example, Singh repeatedly 

17 testified that his father was a member of Akali Dal, and multiple 

18 supporting affidavits also described his father as a member of 

19 that party. However, when Singh was asked for documentary 

20 evidence of his father’s membership in Akali Dal, he asserted 

21 that his father was not a member but only worked or volunteered 
4 

1 for the party. The agency was not compelled to credit Singh’s 

2 explanation for this inconsistency. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 

3 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). 

4 In addition, Singh failed to mention in his asylum 

5 application that his hair was cut when he was attacked. Xiu 

6 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3. In the application, Singh 

7 described in detail his attack and the resulting injuries. 

8 However, he testified before the IJ that his hair was cut when 

9 he was attacked, which he considered humiliating and insulting 

10 to his religion, which requires long hair. The agency was not 

11 required to credit Singh’s explanation for this omission from 

12 his asylum application, which was highly relevant to whether 

13 Singh was attacked on account of his identity as a Sikh. See 

14 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81. Finally, Singh’s testimony and an 

15 affidavit from a village leader differed regarding whether the 

16 leader accompanied Singh to report an incident to the police. 

17 Given the material inconsistencies, substantial evidence 

18 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 

19 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. 

20 Singh argues that the agency erroneously failed to make a 

21 distinct credibility finding with respect to CAT relief. A 
5 

1 finding that the petitioner is not credible as to his or her 

2 subjective fear of persecution will not necessarily preclude 

3 a grant of withholding of removal or CAT relief if the IJ 

4 believed some aspect of the petitioner’s claim. See Paul v. 

5 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-157 (2d Cir. 2006) (remanding for 

6 the agency to consider the risk of future persecution where the 

7 IJ found not credible the alien’s claim of past persecution but 

8 nonetheless credited his testimony that he was a Christian); 

9 cf. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 184-185 (2d Cir. 

10 2004)(applying this principle to a CAT claim). Here, However, 

11 Singh cannot rely on evidence that the government mistreats Sikh 

12 radicals, such as those involved in Akali Dal, because the 

13 agency did not credit his assertion that he and his father were 

14 indeed Sikh radicals. Moreover, the record evidence does not 

15 show that Sikhs generally are subjected to torture in India; 

16 Singh is thus unable to show that he would more likely than not 

17 be tortured. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17; Khouzam v. 

18 Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 168 (2d Cir. 2004). 

19 

20 
6 

1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

2 DENIED. 

3 

4 FOR THE COURT: 

5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk