19-2009

Singh v. Garland

BIA

Nelson, IJ

A205 422 199

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 

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

New York, on the 16th 4 day of March, two thousand twenty-two.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

8 MICHAEL H. PARK,

9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 SIMRANJIT SINGH,

14 Petitioner,

15

16 v. 19-2009

17 NAC

18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Law Office of 

24 Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting 

27 Assistant Attorney General; 

28 Jennifer P. Levings, Senior 

29 Litigation Counsel; Kristin 
2

1 Moresi, Trial Attorney, Office of 

2 Immigration Litigation, United 

3 States Department of Justice, 

4 Washington, DC.

5

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

7 AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of 

8 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Simranjit Singh, a native and citizen of 

10 India, seeks review of a June 7, 2019 decision of the BIA 

11 affirming a January 11, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 

12 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

14 (“CAT”). In re Simranjit Singh, No. A205 422 199 (B.I.A. 

15 Jun. 7, 2019), aff’g No. A205 422 199 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Jan. 

16 11, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

17 underlying facts and procedural history.

18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 

19 BIA, reaching only the BIA’s reliance on the IJ’s adverse 

20 credibility determination. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t 

21 of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Lin 

22 Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 

23 2007). The applicable standards of review are well 

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

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

1 Singh failed to exhaust his current challenge to the IJ’s 

2 adverse credibility determination because he did not raise 

3 the challenge before the BIA. While not jurisdictional, issue 

4 exhaustion is mandatory when the Government raises it, as it

5 has here. See Lin Zhong, 480 F.3d at 107 n.1.

6 Moreover, in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility 

7 determination, the BIA concluded generally that there was no 

8 clear error, but did not address individual findings. See 

9 Lin Zhong, 480 F.3d at 107 n.1, 122. Singh has not identified 

10 any reason to excuse his failure to exhaust.

11 Because Singh’s claims were all based on the same factual 

12 predicate, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is 

13 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 

14 relief, see Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 

15 2006), and his failure to exhaust is therefore fatal to his 

16 petition for review.

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

18 DENIED. 

19 FOR THE COURT: 

20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

21 Clerk of Court