15-2202 

Singh v. Lynch 

BIA 

Christensen, IJ 

A200 239 620

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 

15th 4 day of September, two thousand sixteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 

9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 GURWINDER SINGH, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 15-2202 

17 NAC 

18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, New York, New 

24 York. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

27 Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. 

28 Wernery, Assistant Director; Sarah 

29 Byrd, Trial Attorney, Office of 

30 Immigration Litigation, United 

31 States Department of Justice, 

32 Washington, D.C. 
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 is 

4 DENIED. 

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

6 seeks review of a June 10, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming 

7 a December 10, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 

8 denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, 

9 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 

10 re Gurwinder Singh, No. A200 239 620 (B.I.A. June 10, 2015), 

11 aff’g No. A200 239 620 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 10, 2014). 

12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 

13 and procedural history in this case. 

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 

15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 

16 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 

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

18 Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For 

19 asylum applications like Singh’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, 

20 the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 

21 circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on” 
3

1 inconsistencies in an applicant’s statements and other record 

2 evidence “without regard to whether” those inconsistencies go 

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

4 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Here, 

5 the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 

6 substantial evidence: the IJ identified multiple 

7 inconsistencies and omissions in Singh’s testimony and 

8 documentary evidence. 

9 First, Singh provided inconsistent information about his 

10 first alleged beating. Singh testified that he went to the 

11 hospital after the first beating, but omitted that information 

12 from his application. The IJ reasonably relied on this 

13 omission, see Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3, particularly 

14 as Singh’s documentary evidence also conflicted with his 

15 testimony. Singh testified that he went to the hospital the 

16 day after the beating, but the hospital record he submitted 

17 reflects that he was admitted the day of the beating. Moreover, 

18 though the hospital record indicates that Singh was unconscious 

19 when he arrived, Singh testified that he was still conscious. 

20 In addition, Singh testified that he went to the police 

21 station after that first beating and then to the hospital the 
4

1 next day, but his father’s affidavit contradicts that 

2 testimony. It reports that Singh’s father took Singh to the 

3 hospital first, then went with the village sarpanch to report 

4 the beating to the police. Although Singh insisted that he went 

5 to the police station after the first attack, neither his 

6 father’s nor the sarpanch’s affidavits confirm his testimony. 

7 Second, the IJ reasonably relied on inconsistencies 

8 regarding the second alleged beating. Both Singh’s asylum 

9 application and testimony reflected that, after he reported the 

10 second beating, he and his father were summoned back to the 

11 police station and the police threatened them with violence if 

12 they would not drop the case. However, Singh’s father’s 

13 affidavit omitted this return to the police station. See Xiu 

14 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3. Although asked, Singh was unable 

15 to explain any of the above inconsistencies. See Majidi v. 

16 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must 

17 do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent 

18 statements . . . he must demonstrate that a reasonable 

19 fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” 

20 (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted)). 

21 Given the inconsistency findings, the totality of the 
5

1 circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

2 determination, which is dispositive of all of Singh’s claims 

3 for relief. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66; Paul v. Gonzales, 

4 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that an adverse 

5 credibility determination can be dispositive of asylum, 

6 withholding of removal, and CAT relief if all claims are based 

7 on the same factual predicate). 

8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

10 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

11 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

12 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

13 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

14 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

15 34.1(b). 

16 FOR THE COURT: 

17 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk