18

- 1968 Singh v. Barr BIA Cassin , IJ A 206 469 227 

### 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**  **ELE CTRONIC 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**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood**  **Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 1**  **s t**  **d a**  **y of J**  **u l**  **y , two thousand**  **twenty .**  4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **PARWINDER SINGH**  **,** 13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15

**v. 18** 

**- 1968**  16 **NAC** 17 18 **WILLIAM P. BARR ,**  **UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  20 **R espondent**  **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran , New 24 York , NY. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H . Hunt , Assistant 27 Attorney General; Walter Bocchini , 28 Senior Litigation Counsel ; Monica 29 M. Twombly , Trial Attorney , Office 30 of Immigration Litigation , United 312 States Department of Justice, 1 Washington, DC. 2 3 U PON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 6

is DENIED. 7

Petitioner Parwinder Singh , a native and citizen of 8

India , seeks review of a June 4 , 201 8 , decision of the BIA 9
affirming a n August 21 , 2017 , decision of an I mmigration Judge 10

(“IJ”) d enying his application for asylum, withholding of 11

removal , and relief under the Conve ntion Against Torture 12

(“CAT”). In re Parwinder Singh , No. A 206 469 227 (B.I.A. 13

June 4 , 2018 ), aff’g No. A 206 469 227 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 14

Aug. 21 , 2017 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 15
underlying facts and procedural his tory. 16

Under the circumstances, we have consider ed both the IJ’s 17
and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 18

Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec

. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 19

Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 20

est ablished. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 21

Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 22

“ C onsidering the totality of the circumstances, and all 23
relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 243 determination on

. . . the consistency between the 1
applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 2
the internal consistency of each such statement, the 3
consistency of such statements with other evidence of 4

record

. . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, 5
inaccuracy, or falsehood go es t o the heart of the applicant’s 6

claim , or any other relevant factor .” 8 U.S.C. 7

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “ We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility 8
determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, 9
it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder could make such an 10
adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 11

F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d 12

at 76. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 13

determination that Singh was not credible as to his claim 14

that members of the Akali Dal Badal attacked him three times 15
in India on account of his membership in a rival political 16

party, the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar (“SADA”)

. 17

The agency reasonably relied on inconsistent evidence 18
regarding when Singh began his ass ociation with the SADA 19
party, what harm his father suffered on account of politics, 20
what happened during Singh’s alleged attacks, and when Singh 21
went to the hospital for treatment. See 8 U.S.C. 224 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). When provided an opportunity to 1
explain these inconsistencies, Singh further undermine d his 2
credibility by changing his testimony so that it was 3
internally inconsistent. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 4
77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more th an offer 5
a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to 6

secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact

7

finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal 8
quotation marks omitted)). 9

T he agency also reasonably relied furthe r on Singh's 10
failure to rehabilitate his testimony with reliable 11
corroborating evidence. “An applicant’s failure to 12
corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, 13
because the absence of corroboration in general makes an 14
applicant unable to reha bilitate testimony that has already 15
been called into question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 16

268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The IJ reasonably found that 17
affidavits from two of Singh’s acquaintances undermin ed 18
Singh’s credibility further because the affidavits were 19
identical in every respect, including grammatical and 20
typographical errors

. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of 21

Justice , 489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2 00 7) (holding that we 225 “ ha [ve] firmly embraced the commonsensical notion that 1
striking similar ities between affidavits are an indication 2

that the statements are ' canned ' ” ). 3

The IJ also reasonably declined to afford weight to the 4
affidavit from Singh’s parents because, in addition to 5

inconsistencies with Singh’s testimony about his medical 6

treatment , the authors were interested parties who were not 7

available for cross

- examination. S ee Y.C. v. Holder , 741 8

F.3d 324, 332 , 334 (2d Cir. 2013) ( holding that “ [w] e 9
generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to 10
be afforded an applicant’s documentary evidence” and 11
upholding B IA ’s decision not to credit letter from 12
applicant’s spo use ); see also In re H

- L

- H

- & Z

- Y

- Z

- , 25 I. & 13
N. Dec. 209, 215 (B.I.A. 2010) (finding that letters from 14
alien’s friends and family were insufficient to provide 15
substantial support for alien’s claims because they were from 16
interested witnesses not subject t o cross

- examination), 17
overruled on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder , 677 18

F.3d 130, 133

– 38 (2d Cir. 2012). And, c ontrary to Singh’s 19
contention, the agency explicitly acknowledged statements 20

from the doctors who purportedly treated him and did not e rr 21
in finding those statements , which were prepared for the 226 hearing rather than contemporaneously with the treatment, 1
insufficient to rehabilitate Singh’s credibility

. See Y.C. , 2

741 F.3d at 332. 3

Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings , the 4
agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 5

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

T hat determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of 7

removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based 8

on the same factual predicate

. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 9

F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 10
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 11

DENIED . All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 12

stays VACATED. 13

FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O ’Hagan Wolfe , 15 Cl erk of Court 16