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. 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 **15 th**  **day of September, two thousand sixteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **GURWINDER SINGH,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 15-2202** 16 **NAC** 17 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Amy Nussbaum Gell, New York, New 23 York. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. 27 Wernery, Assistant Director; Sarah 28 Byrd, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, D.C. 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 Gurwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, 5 seeks review of a June 10, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming 6 a December 10, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 7 denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, 8 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 9 re Gurwinder Singh, No. A200 239 620 (B.I.A. June 10, 2015), 10 aff’g No. A200 239 620 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 10, 2014). 11 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 12 and procedural history in this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 14 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales , 432 15 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 16 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu 17 Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For 18 asylum applications like Singh’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, 19 the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 20 circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on” 213 inconsistencies in an applicant’s statements and other record 1 evidence “without regard to whether” those inconsistencies go 2 “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 3

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. Here, 4 the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 5 substantial evidence: the IJ identified multiple 6 inconsistencies and omissions in Singh’s testimony and 7 documentary evidence. 8 First, Singh provided inconsistent information about his 9 first alleged beating. Singh testified that he went to the 10 hospital after the first beating, but omitted that information 11 from his application. The IJ reasonably relied on this 12 omission, see Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 166 n.3, particularly 13 as Singh’s documentary evidence also conflicted with his 14 testimony. Singh testified that he went to the hospital the 15 day after the beating, but the hospital record he submitted 16

reflects that he was admitted the day of the beating. Moreover, 17 though the hospital record indicates that Singh was unconscious 18 when he arrived, Singh testified that he was still conscious. 19 In addition, Singh testified that he went to the police 20 station after that first beating and then to the hospital the 214 next day, but his father’s affidavit contradicts that 1 testimony. It reports that Singh’s father took Singh to the 2 hospital first, then went with the village sarpanch to report 3

the beating to the police. Although Singh insisted that he went 4 to the police station after the first attack, neither his 5 father’s nor the sarpanch’s affidavits confirm his testimony. 6 Second, the IJ reasonably relied on inconsistencies 7 regarding the second alleged beating. Both Singh’s asylum 8 application and testimony reflected that, after he reported the 9 second beating, he and his father were summoned back to the 10 police station and the police threatened them with violence if 11 they would not drop the case. However, Singh’s father’s 12 affidavit omitted this return to the police station. See Xiu 13 Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 166 n.3. Although asked, Singh was unable 14 to explain any of the above inconsistencies. See Majidi v. 15

Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must 16 do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent 17

statements . . . he must demonstrate that a reasonable 18 fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” 19 (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted)). 20 Given the inconsistency findings, the totality of the 215 circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility 1 determination, which is dispositive of all of Singh’s claims 2 for relief. Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165-66; Paul v. Gonzales , 3 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that an adverse 4 credibility determination can be dispositive of asylum, 5 withholding of removal, and CAT relief if all claims are based 6 on the same factual predicate). 7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 8 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 9 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 10 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 11 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 12 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 13 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 14 34.1(b). 15

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