16-2989 Singh v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A205 263 120 

### 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 **22 nd**  **day of February, two thousand eighteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 7 **PETER W. HALL,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **GOURPREET SINGH, AKA GURPREET** 13 **SINGH,** 14 Petitioner **,** 15 16 **v. 16-2989** 17 **NAC** 18 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER:** Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Keith I. McManus, 27 Assistant Director; Maarja T. 28 Luhtaru, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 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 Gourpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, 5 seeks review of a July 28, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming 6 an October 19, 2015, 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 Gourpreet Singh, No. A205 263 120 (B.I.A. July 28, 2016), 10 aff’g No. A205 263 120 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 19, 2015). 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 “for the sake of completeness.” 15 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 16 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 17 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 18 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 19 Considering the totality of the 20 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 21 trier of fact may base a credibility 22 determination on . . . the consistency 23 between the applicant’s . . . written and 24 oral statements . . . , the internal 253 consistency of each such statement, [and] 1 the consistency of such statements with 2 other evidence of record . . . without 3 regard to whether an inconsistency, 4 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart 5 of the applicant’s claim. 6 7 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. 8 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that 9 Singh was not credible as to his claim that Congress Party 10 members attacked him on account of his membership in the 11 Shiromani Akali Dal Mann Party. 12 The agency reasonably relied on record inconsistencies 13 regarding who prepared a supporting letter from Singh’s 14 political party, how he obtained tha t letter, whether he told 15 his party about being attacked by Congress Party members, and 16 whether police raided his home and harassed his family members. 17

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 18 165-67. Singh did not provide compelling explanations for 19 these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 20 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a 21 plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure 22 relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would 23 be compelled to credit his testimony.”) (internal quotation 24 marks omitted). 254 Given the inconsistency findings relating directly to the 1 past harm, continued interest of the Congress Party, and the 2 validity of the evidence, the agency’s adverse credibility 3 determination is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That determination is dispositive of 5 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three 6 claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. 7 Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 9 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 10 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 11 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 12 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 13 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 14 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 15 34.1(b). 16

FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 18