18-1720 

Singh v. Barr 

BIA 

Lurye, IJ 

A200 815 954

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 

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

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

on the 23rd 4 day of December, two thousand nineteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 GUIDO CALABRESI,

8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 

9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 HARMEET SINGH, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 18-1720 

17 NAC 

18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, 

24 NY. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 

27 Attorney General; Jeffrey R. 

28 Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel; 

29 Kathleen Kelly Volkert, Trial 

30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 

31 Litigation, United States 

32 Department of Justice, Washington, 

33 DC. 
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 

4 is DENIED. 

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

6 seeks review of a May 11, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming 

7 a June 28, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 

8 denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, 

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

10 re Harmeet Singh, No. A200 815 954 (B.I.A. May 11, 2018), 

11 aff’g No. A200 815 954 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 28, 2017). 

12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 

13 and procedural history. 

14 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s 

15 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 

16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 

17 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 

18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 

19 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 

20 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 

21 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 

22 determination on . . . the consistency between the 

23 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 
3 

1 the internal consistency of each such statement, the 

2 consistency of such statements with other evidence of 

3 record . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, 

4 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s 

5 claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. 

6 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 

7 163–64 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence supports the 

8 agency’s determination that Singh was not credible as to his 

9 claim that police and members of the Akali Dal Badal party 

10 beat him twice in India on account of his membership in the 

11 Akali Dal Mann party. 

12 The adverse credibility determination was based on 

13 inconsistent statements from Singh’s credible fear interview, 

14 asylum application, hearing testimony, and supporting 

15 letters. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). As an initial 

16 matter, the agency did not err in relying on the record of 

17 Singh’s credible fear interview because the record of the 

18 interview was sufficiently reliable: the interview was 

19 conducted with an interpreter, it was memorialized in a 

20 typewritten question-and-answer format, the questions posed 

21 were designed to elicit details of Singh’s asylum claim, and 

22 Singh’s responses indicated that he understood the questions. 

23 See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009) 
4 

1 (requiring close scrutiny of credible fear interviews but 

2 finding a record reliable when it is typewritten, 

3 demonstrates that the applicant understood the questions, 

4 reflects questions about past harm or fear of future harm, 

5 and is conducted with an interpreter). 

6 The agency reasonably found that Singh provided different 

7 birthdates to an asylum officer during his credible fear 

8 interview and police in Michigan during an arrest than he 

9 provided in his removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. 

10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh was unable to explain the 

11 inconsistencies; rather, he further impugned his credibility 

12 by stating that he had not known his correct birthdate during 

13 his credible fear interview, despite the fact that the 

14 interviewer transcribed the purportedly correct birthdate and 

15 would have had no basis to know that date if Singh had not 

16 provided it. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d 

17 Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible 

18 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; 

19 he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be 

20 compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks 

21 omitted)). 

22 The agency also reasonably relied on Singh’s inconsistent 

23 descriptions of his second attack as to whether his attackers 
5 

1 chased after him. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). When 

2 asked to explain the inconsistency, Singh repeatedly changed 

3 his testimony, creating new inconsistencies that supported 

4 finding him not credible. See id.; see also Majidi, 430 F.3d 

5 at 80. 

6 Having questioned Singh’s credibility, the agency 

7 reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate his 

8 testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. “An 

9 applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may 

10 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in 

11 general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony 

12 that has already been called into question.” Biao Yang v. 

13 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency did 

14 not err in declining to credit affidavits from Singh’s parents 

15 and neighbor or unsworn doctors’ notes because some of the 

16 authors were interested witnesses and none were available for 

17 cross-examination. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d 

18 Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of 

19 the weight to be afforded an applicant’s documentary 

20 evidence.”); see also In re H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 

21 209, 215 (B.I.A. 2010) (finding that letters from alien’s 

22 friends and family were insufficient to provide “substantial 

23 support” for alien’s claims because they were from interested 
6 

1 witnesses not subject to cross-examination), overruled on 

2 other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 133–

3 38 (2d Cir. 2012). 

4 Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings, the 

5 agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 

6 substantial evidence.* See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 

7 That credibility determination was dispositive of asylum, 

8 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three 

9 claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul 

10 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

12 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

13 stays VACATED. 

14 FOR THE COURT: 

15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

16 Clerk of Court

* The IJ erred by failing to provide Singh an opportunity to explain additional inconsistencies 

identified in the record. See Ming Shi Xue v. B.I.A., 439 F.3d 111, 125 (2d Cir. 2006). 

Nevertheless, remand would be futile because Singh’s inconsistent statements regarding his 

birthdate and alleged second attack as well as his changing stories when asked to explain those 

inconsistencies were more than sufficient to support the agency’s adverse credibility 

determination. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 339 (2d Cir. 2006) 

(holding that remand is futile when this Court can “confidently predict” that the agency would 

reach the same decision absent the errors); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165–67.