Court Opinion

ID: 9953058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 15:02:11.144189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:37.606875
License: Public Domain

22-6281
     Bala v. Garland
                                                                                   BIA
                                                                            McCarthy IJ
                                                                           A216 494 990

                            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 for the Second
 2   Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
 3   Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of March, two thousand
 4   twenty-four.
 5
 6   PRESENT:
 7                     RICHARD C. WESLEY,
 8                     GERARD E. LYNCH,
 9                     BETH ROBINSON,
10                    Circuit Judges.
11   _____________________________________
12
13   KIRAN BALA,
14            Petitioner,
15
16                     v.                                        22-6281
17                                                               NAC
18   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20              Respondent.
21   _____________________________________
22
23
 1   FOR PETITIONER:                      Dalbir Singh, Dalbir Singh & Associates, New
 2                                        York, NY.
 3
 4   FOR RESPONDENT:                      Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
 5                                        Attorney General; Brianne Whalen Cohen,
 6                                        Senior Litigation Counsel; Mona Maria
 7                                        Yousif, Attorney, Office of Immigration
 8                                        Litigation, United States Department of
 9                                        Justice, Washington, DC.

10            UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

11   Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

12   DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

13            Petitioner Kiran Bala, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a May

14   23, 2022 decision of the BIA affirming a May 6, 2019 decision of an Immigration

15   Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

16   relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Kiran Bala, No. A 216

17   494 990 (B.I.A. May 23, 2022), aff’g No. A 216 494 990 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. May 6,

18   2019).     We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

19   procedural history.

20            We have reviewed the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA. See Guan v.

21   Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam).        We review factual

22   findings, including adverse credibility determinations, “under the substantial

                                               2
 1   evidence standard,” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and

 2   “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable

 3   adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. §

 4   1252(b)(4)(B).

 5         Bala alleged that she was attacked four times by members of the Shiromani

 6   Akali Dal Badal Party (“Badal Party”) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”)

 7   because of her support of the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann Amritsar Party.

 8   Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

 9   given inconsistencies between Bala’s asylum interview and testimony, her

10   demeanor during her hearing, and her lack of corroboration.

11         “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a

12   trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or

13   responsiveness of the applicant . . . , the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . .

14   account, the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements

15   (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the

16   circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of

17   each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence . . . ,

18   and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether

                                                 3
 1   an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s

 2   claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . .

 3   to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it

 4   is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility

 5   ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam);

 6   accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76.

 7         The IJ reasonably relied on inconsistencies. First, Bala’s statements at her

 8   asylum interview and hearing about when she was in India after a 2006 move to

 9   Singapore were inconsistent with her visa application.         At her interview and

10   hearing, she stated that she lived in Singapore for about 10 years beginning in 2006,

11   returned to India around the time of her marriage in 2016, and made visits to India

12   during that 10-year period. When confronted with her visa application reflecting

13   that her employment in Singapore ended in December 2014, she admitted that she

14   was living in India between that time and her 2016 marriage.

15         Second, Bala was inconsistent about how she discovered that her father had

16   been killed and why she believed that he was killed by members of the Badal Party

17   and BJP. At her asylum interview, she said that one night in 2002, someone told

18   her that “somebody was lying killed on the road,” and that, the following

                                               4
 1   morning, she found her father dead. Certified Administrative Record at 203.

 2   Bala explained that her father had been killed “[o]n the road,” and his killers

 3   “threw him in the field.” Id. She also said that she knew that members of the

 4   Badal Party and BJP had killed her father because they had threatened her family

 5   in the past. But in her testimony at the hearing and the written statement that she

 6   submitted, she did not say that she found her father’s body on the road or in the

 7   field. Instead, she testified at the hearing only that “some people” told her that

 8   her father had been killed. Id. at 110. She then testified inconsistently about how

 9   those people knew that he had been killed by members of the Badal Party and BJP.

10   First, she testified that those people did “not witness” the murder, but knew that

11   party members had killed her father because the people who told her about the

12   murder were “local people” who knew about her father’s political affiliations. Id.

13   at 140. But later, she testified inconsistently that the “[p]eople who informed

14   [her]” about the murder “witnessed” the murder firsthand. Id. Bala tried to

15   explain her failure to mention at the hearing that she found her father’s body by

16   stating that she was nervous. But the agency was not compelled to accept that

17   explanation, and it fails to resolve her inconsistent testimony about how she knew

18   that her father was killed by members of the Badal Party and BJP. See Majidi v.

                                             5
 1   Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a

 2   plausible explanation for h[er]inconsistent statements to secure relief; [s]he must

 3   demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit h[er]

 4   testimony.” (quotation marks omitted)).

 5         Third, she was inconsistent about what happened to her passport. At her

 6   asylum interview, she said that she lost her passport when she left her purse on a

 7   train, and she reported the loss to the police and had the report. But she testified

 8   at the hearing that her employer took her passport.           The agency was not

 9   compelled to accept her explanation that she was scared and confused, as she did

10   not explain which version of her story was accurate or why she was scared. See

11   id.

12         Fourth, she was inconsistent about when she was married in India, stating

13   during her interview it was in June or July of 2016, then testifying first that she

14   married on May 29, 2016, and then that she did not remember her wedding date.

15   Contrary to her argument here that this inconsistency is trivial, the IJ agency did

16   not err in considering it under the totality of the circumstances, particularly as her

17   testimony to a precise date is incompatible with her statement that she did not

18   remember.     See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (“[E]ven where an IJ relies on

                                               6
 1   discrepancies or lacunae that, if taken separately, concern matters collateral or

 2   ancillary to the claim, the cumulative effect may nevertheless be deemed

 3   consequential by the fact-finder.” (quotation marks omitted)).

 4         The adverse credibility determination is bolstered by the IJ’s demeanor and

 5   corroboration findings.    We give “particular deference” to an IJ’s demeanor

 6   finding because the IJ is “in the best position to evaluate whether apparent

 7   problems in the . . . testimony suggest a lack of credibility or, rather, can be

 8   attributed to an innocent cause such as difficulty understanding the question.” Li

 9   Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotation marks

10   omitted). Moreover, the record reflects that Bala was not responsive to some

11   questions and often answered that she did not remember.

12         Finally, Bala’s lack of corroboration further supports the agency’s

13   determination. “An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may

14   bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general makes an

15   applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into

16   question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

17   Bala did not corroborate her marriage; she did not produce the police report

18   documenting the loss of her passport, despite stating that she had one; her father’s

                                              7
 1   death certificate does not confirm that he was murdered; and, as set forth above,

 2   her visa application undercut her claim that she did not return to live in India until

 3   2016. Because the IJ already found her testimony not credible, the agency was not

 4   required to identify additional evidence or consider whether it was reasonably

 5   available. Cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“Where the trier of fact determines that

 6   the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible

 7   testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the

 8   evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.” (emphasis added)).

 9         In sum, the inconsistencies, the IJ’s demeanor finding, and the lack of

10   corroboration   provide    substantial   evidence    for   the   adverse   credibility

11   determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145

12   n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from

13   showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies

14   would so preclude even more forcefully.”); Biao Yang, 496 F.3d at 273.            The

15   adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of

16   removal, and CAT relief because all three claims are based on the same factual

17   predicate. See Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76 (“Where the same factual predicate

18   underlies a petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

                                               8
1   under the CAT, an adverse credibility determination forecloses all three forms of

2   relief.”).

3          For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending

4   motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

5                                        FOR THE COURT:
6                                        Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
7                                        Clerk of Court

                                           9