Case Name: Gurdeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-18
Citations: 638 F. App'x 111
Docket Number: No. 14-4677
Parties: Gurdeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 638
Pages: 111–113

Head Matter:
Gurdeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-4677.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2016.
Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Grace Brier, Law Clerk, Dawn S. Conrad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Gurdeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a November 24, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming a January 3, 3013, decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying Singh's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Gurdeep Singh, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. -24, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 3, 2013). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ's and the BIA's opinions "for the sake of completeness." Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008).
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 finding on inconsistencies and omissions 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)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 167. Omissions are "functionally equivalent" to inconsistencies, and "can serve as a proper basis for an adverse credibility determination." Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166, n. 3. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Singh was not credible.
The agency relied on inconsistencies between Singh's border interview and his credible fear interview, asylum application, and testimony. In assessing whether the record of a border or credible fear interview is reliable for purposes of an adverse credibility determination, we look to whether the interview was "memorialized in a typewritten document setting forth the questions put to petitioner as well as [his] responses," and whether "the interview was conducted with the aid of a[n] . interpreter^] . the interviewing officer explained the purpose of the interview," and the "petitioner was asked questions that were clearly designed to elicit a potential basis for an asylum claim." Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 723, 725 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 179-80 (2d Cir.2004). The interview records bear these "hallmarks of reliability." Ming Zhang, 585 F.3d at 725. The agency properly considered the divergence between Singh's border interview, at which he stated he came to the United States to work and had no fear of persecution in India, and his later accounts that he had been persecuted based on his membership in the Shromani Akali Dal ("SAD") political party, and feared he would be harmed or killed if he returned to India. Athough he had an opportunity to explain this inconsistency, Singh failed to do so. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005).
The agency also considered how an affidavit and medical certificate from Singh's doctor omitted that Singh's leg injuries were so serious that Singh was unable to walk after the February 10, 2010 beating. When Singh was confronted with this omission, Singh stated that.this doctor lacked x-ray and other equipment to assess Singh's condition; however, the agency was not compelled to credit this explanation since a doctor could observe a patient's ability to walk without such equipment. Majidi 430 F.3d at 80-81.
The agency also considered the documents Singh submitted to corroborate his testimony; however, a letter from Singh's temple merely stated that Singh was a member of the SAD Party, and a letter from the president of the SAD Party did not mention any of the incidents of persecution. Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007). Athough Singh argues that the agency should have given "proper consideration" to a letter from Bhagwan Singh, this letter did not rehabilitate Singh's problematic testimony, as the letter stated that Singh suffered a shoulder injury after the February 2010 beating; this letter did not corroborate.Singh's claim that his legs were so badly beaten that he could not walk. Id.
In light of the inconsistencies, omissions, and lack of corroboration, the "totality of the circumstances" supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. This finding was sufficient to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as all three forms of relief relied on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005).
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 with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).