Court Opinion

ID: 9401850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 15:00:48.721814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.668525
License: Public Domain

21-6024
     Singh v. Garland
                                                                                   BIA
                                                                           A209 387 744

                             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 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
 4   New York, on the 14th day of June, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
 9            RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10            MYRNA PÉREZ,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   LOVEPREET SINGH,
15            Petitioner,
16
17                      v.                                       21-6024
18                                                               NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                   Lawrence Spivak, Jamaica, NY.
25
26   FOR RESPONDENT:                   Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
27                                       Attorney General; Cindy S.
28                                       Ferrier, Assistant Director;
29                                       Tracie N. Jones, Trial Attorney,
 1                             Office of Immigration Litigation,
 2                             United States Department of
 3                             Justice, Washington, DC.
 4
 5       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

 6   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

 7   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

 8   is DENIED.

 9       Petitioner Lovepreet Singh, a native and citizen of

10   India, seeks review of a December 14, 2020 decision of the

11   BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Lovepreet Singh,

12   No. A209 387 744 (B.I.A. Dec. 14, 2020).       We assume the

13   parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

14   history.

15       We review the BIA’s denial of reconsideration for abuse

16   of discretion.   See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109,

17   111 (2d Cir. 2006).   A motion to reconsider “shall specify

18   the errors of law or fact in the previous order.”    8 U.S.C.

19   § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen

20   Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001).

21       The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to

22   reverse its prior decision because there was no error in the

23   adverse credibility determination, i.e., substantial evidence
                                   2
 1   supported that determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C);

 2   Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).

 3   The agency’s adverse credibility determination was supported

 4   by     Singh’s   inconsistent   evidence   regarding    whether   he

 5   required treatment at a hospital after first being attacked,

 6   whether he told people from his party about both his attacks,

 7   and whether his father has ever left India.            See 8 U.S.C.

 8   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145

 9   n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might

10   preclude an alien from showing that an IJ was compelled to

11   find    him   credible.    Multiple   inconsistencies     would   so

12   preclude even more forcefully.”). Thus, the BIA did not abuse

13   its discretion in concluding that Singh had not persuasively

14   shown that reversal of its underlying decision was warranted.

15   See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke

16   Zhen Zhao, 265 F.3d at 90.

17          For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

18   DENIED.    All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

19   stays VACATED.

20                             FOR THE COURT:
21                             Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
22                             Clerk of Court
                                       3