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.**  **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 **17 th**  **day of June, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN** , 7 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 8 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **GURPREET SINGH,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 14-2129** 16 **NAC** 17 18 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 24 25 **FOR PETITIONER:** Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, New 26 York, NY. 27 282 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin Mizer, Acting Assistant 1 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 2 Assistant Director; Jennifer R. 3 Khouri, Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington D.C. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 10

DENIED. 11 Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review 12 of a June 11, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming the January 13 14, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his 14 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 15 pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 16 Gurpreet Singh , No. A200 892 517 (B.I.A. June 11, 2014), aff’g 17

No. A200 892 517 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 14, 2013). We assume 18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history in this case. 20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 21 decisions of both the IJ and the BIA “for the sake of 22 completeness.” See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 23 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 243 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 1 Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 For asylum applications like Singh’s, governed by the REAL 3 ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of 4 the circumstances,” base a credibility determination on 5 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other 6 record evidence “without regard to whether” the inconsistencies 7 go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility 9 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, 10 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such” a 11 ruling. Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) 12 (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 13 adverse credibility determination. 14 The agency reasonably relied on multiple inconsistencies 15 in finding Singh not credible. For example, Singh repeatedly 16 testified that his father was a member of Akali Dal, and multiple 17 supporting affidavits also described his father as a member of 18 that party. However, when Singh was asked for documentary 19 evidence of his father’s membership in Akali Dal, he asserted 20 that his father was not a member but only worked or volunteered 214 for the party. The agency was not compelled to credit Singh’s 1 explanation for this inconsistency. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 2 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). 3 In addition, Singh failed to mention in his asylum 4 application that his hair was cut when he was attacked. Xiu 5 Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 166 n.3. In the application, Singh 6 described in detail his attack and the resulting injuries. 7 However, he testified before the IJ that his hair was cut when 8 he was attacked, which he considered humiliating and insulting 9 to his religion, which requires long hair. The agency was not 10 required to credit Singh’s explanation for this omission from 11 his asylum application, which was highly relevant to whether 12 Singh was attacked on account of his identity as a Sikh. See 13 Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80-81. Finally, Singh’s testimony and an 14 affidavit from a village leader differed regarding whether the 15 leader accompanied Singh to report an incid ent to the police. 16 Given the material inconsistencies, substantial evidence 17 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 18 Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. 19 Singh argues that the agency erroneously failed to make a 20 distinct credibility finding with respect to CAT relief. A 215 finding that the petitioner is not credible as to his or her 1 subjective fear of persecution will not necessarily preclude 2 a grant of withholding of removal or CAT relief if the IJ 3 believed some aspect of the petitioner’s claim. See Paul v. 4 Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 155-157 (2d Cir. 2006) (remanding for 5 the agency to consider the risk of future persecution where the 6 IJ found not credible the alien’s claim of past persecution but 7 nonetheless credited his testimony that he was a Christian); 8 cf

. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 184-185 (2d Cir. 9 2004)(applying this principle to a CAT claim). Here, However, 10 Singh cannot rely on evidence that the government mistreats Sikh 11 radicals, such as those involved in Akali Dal, because the 12 agency did not credit his assertion that he and his father were 13 indeed Sikh radicals. Moreover, the record evidence does not 14 show that Sikhs generally are subjected to torture in India; 15 Singh is thus unable to show that he would more likely than not 16 be tortured. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17; Khouzam v. 17 Ashcroft , 361 F.3d 161, 168 (2d Cir. 2004). 18 19 206 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1

DENIED. 2 3
FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5