14-1122 

Singh v. Holder 

BIA 

Christensen, IJ 

A200 938 517 

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 ASUMMARY 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 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 16th day of March, two thousand fifteen. 

PRESENT: 

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

SUSAN L. CARNEY, 

CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

GULZAR SINGH, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 14-1122 

 NAC 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Law Office of 

 Jaspreet Singh, Fremont, 

 California.

FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General; 

Derek C. Julius, Senior 
2

Litigation Counsel; John M 

McAdams, Jr., Trial Attorney, 

Office of Immigration 

Litigation, United States 

Department of Justice, 

Washington D.C. 

 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

is DENIED. 

 Petitioner Gulzar Singh, a native and citizen of India, 

seeks review of a March 18, 2014, decision of the BIA, 

affirming the July 5, 2012, decision of an Immigration 

Judge (“IJ”), denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gulzar Singh, No. A200 938 

517 (B.I.A. Mar. 18, 2014), aff’g No. A200 938 517 (Immig. 

Ct. N.Y. City July 5, 2012). We assume the parties’ 

familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 

history in this case. 

 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 

the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the 
3

IJ’s determination that relocation to another part of the 

country was possible, which the BIA declined to reach. See 

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 

(2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are 

well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. 

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

 We conclude that the agency’s adverse credibility 

determination is supported by substantial evidence. For 

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

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

circumstances,” base a credibility determination on 

inconsistencies in an applicant’s statements and other 

record evidence “without regard to whether” they go “to the 

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

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 

163-64 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 

 The IJ reasonably relied on material discrepancies 

among Singh’s testimony, his application, and his 

corroborating documents. Singh testified that he was 

beaten by Alkali Dal Badal (“ADB”) members and had only one 
4

encounter with police after he tried to report ADB abuse; 

his wife, however, wrote that he was beaten by police at 

the behest of the ADB, not by ADB members. Moreover, Singh 

testified to numerous ADB threats prior to the two beatings 

in 2010, but neither his application nor his wife’s letter 

mentioned any ADB threats. These discrepancies are 

material to Singh’s claim of persecution, as they concern 

mistreatment by the ADB—the very activity upon which his 

claim of persecution rests. Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of 

Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006); see also

Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3 (holding that omission is 

functionally equivalent to an inconsistency). 

 The IJ was not required to accept Singh’s explanation 

for the discrepancies in his wife’s letter—that she is 

uneducated—because, as the IJ noted, the remainder of 

Singh’s wife’s letter is accurate as to the details of 

Singh’s involvement with the Alkali Dal Mann (“ADM”). See 

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

 The IJ also reasonably relied on the discrepancy 

between Singh’s testimony and the letter from an ADM 
5

official. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Singh 

testified to only one encounter with the police and 

insisted that there were no other encounters, but the ADM 

letter states that Singh and his family were consistently 

harassed by police. The IJ was not required to credit 

Singh’s explanation that the author of the letter was 

mistaken. Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81. 

 Finally, the IJ reasonably found Singh’s corroborating 

evidence insufficient to rehabilitate his discredited 

testimony. Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d 

Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Singh submitted no evidence that 

ADB members persecute ADM members. The State Department 

report in the record said nothing about ADB mistreatment of 

ADM members or conflict between political parties in the 

Punjab generally. Other than the letters from his wife and 

an ADM official, Singh submitted a letter from his local 

Sikh temple stating that the ADB had “bothered” him, as 

well as a doctor’s note listing his injuries but providing 

no cause for them. The IJ was not required to give any 

particular weight to these documents, particularly given 
6

their lack of detail. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, 

the IJ reasonably found that Singh failed to rehabilitate 

his testimony. 

 Considering the discrepancies among Singh’s testimony, 

his application, and his supporting documents, as well as 

his failure to submit evidence corroborating his story, the 

IJ’s adverse credibility determination is based on 

substantial evidence. Accordingly, because all of Singh’s 

claims were based on the same factual predicate and relied 

on his credibility, the agency did not err in denying 

asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Paul v. 

Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

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

removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 

is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 

this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request 

for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance 
7

with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and 

Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 

 FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk