Court Opinion

ID: 9905429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 16:01:01.728883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:28.579247
License: Public Domain

21-6579
     Singh v. Garland
                                                                                   BIA
                                                                           A200 939 076

                             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 29th day of November, two thousand
 4   twenty-three.
 5
 6   PRESENT:
 7                      JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
 8                      MICHAEL H. PARK,
 9                      SARAH A. L. MERRIAM,
10                    Circuit Judges.
11   _____________________________________
12
13   SURJIT SINGH,
14             Petitioner,
15
16                      v.                                       21-6579
17
18   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20              Respondent.
21   _____________________________________
 1   FOR PETITIONER:                    Jaspreet Singh, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh,
 2                                      Richmond Hill, NY.
 3
 4   FOR RESPONDENT:                    Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
 5                                      Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne,
 6                                      Assistant Director; Raya Jarawan, Trial
 7                                      Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation,
 8                                      United States Department of Justice,
 9                                      Washington, D.C.
10
11         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

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

13   AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

14         Petitioner Surjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of an

15   October 7, 2021, decision of the BIA denying his motions to reopen his removal

16   proceedings.   In re Surjit Singh, No. A200 939 076 (B.I.A. Oct. 7, 2021).    We

17   assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

18         The only decision before us is the BIA’s denial of Singh’s second and third

19   motions to reopen, in which Singh sought reopening to re-apply for asylum and

20   related relief based on his fear that Congress Party members and the police would

21   harm him and his family based on his support for the Shiromani Akali Dal

22   Amritsar (“SADA”) Party. He alleges that changed conditions in India and the

                                             2
1    ineffective assistance of his former attorneys excused the time and number

2    limitations on his motions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233

3    (2d Cir. 2005). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of

4    discretion and any findings regarding changed country conditions for substantial

5    evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2008).

6          It is undisputed that Singh’s 2019 and 2021 motions were untimely and

7    number barred because they were his second and third motions to reopen filed

 8   years after his removal order became final in 2014. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A),

 9   (C)(i) (setting one-motion limit and 90-day deadline for motions to reopen);

10   8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (same). However, the time and number limits do not apply

11   if reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the motion “is based on changed

12   country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which

13   removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and

14   would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.”

15   8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). Time and number limits may

16   also be excused by a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Cekic v. INS,

17   435 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Iavorski v. INS, 232 F.3d 124, 132 (2d Cir.

                                               3
 1   2000). The BIA did not err in concluding that neither exception applied to Singh’s

 2   motions.

 3         2019 Motion to Reopen

 4         In denying Singh’s 2019 motion, the BIA did not err in relying on an

 5   underlying adverse credibility determination to decline to credit Singh’s affidavit,

 6   which was the only evidence he submitted to support his assertion of changed

 7   circumstances. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We generally

 8   defer to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to be afforded an applicant’s

 9   documentary evidence.”).     The adverse credibility finding, dating to Singh’s

10   original 2010 application, was based on inconsistencies in his testimony and the

11   submission of unreliable documents. As we have held, a single false document

12   or a single instance of false testimony may infect the balance of an applicant’s

13   uncorroborated evidence. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-49 (2d

14   Cir. 2007) (upholding agency’s decision not to credit an unauthenticated village

15   committee notice submitted with a motion to reopen where movant was found not

16   credible in the underlying proceeding). The BIA acted within its discretion when

                                              4
1    it concluded that Singh’s new affidavit was entitled to little weight in light of the

2    prior adverse credibility finding.

3          2021 Motion to Reopen

4          In denying Singh’s 2021 motion to reopen, the BIA did not err in finding that

5    Singh failed to show that the changed country conditions exception applied

6    because (1) his individualized evidence was previously available at the time of his

7    2013 hearing, did not rebut the underlying adverse credibility determination, or

8    was not reliable, and (2) his country conditions evidence did not show a change in

 9   the treatment of SADA members since the time of his hearing.            See 8 U.S.C.

10   § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (requiring previously unavailable evidence for reopening

11   based on changed conditions); see also Y.C., 741 F.3d at 334 (“We defer to the

12   agency’s determination of the weight afforded to an alien’s documentary

13   evidence.”); Matter of F-S-N-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3 (B.I.A. 2020) (“[T]o prevail on a

14   motion to reopen alleging changed country conditions where the persecution

15   claim was previously denied based on an adverse credibility finding in the

16   underlying proceedings, the [movant] must either overcome the prior

17   determination or show that the new claim is independent of the evidence that was

                                              5
1    found to be not credible.”); Kaur, 413 F.3d at 234 (finding no error in the BIA’s

2    determination that “evidence submitted by petitioner in support of [the] motion

3    was not ‘material’ because it did not rebut the adverse credibility finding that

4    provided the basis for the IJ’s denial of petitioner’s underlying asylum

5    application”). We find no merit to Singh’s argument that the agency’s underlying

6    adverse credibility determination did not reach the credibility of his membership

 7   in SADA because that adverse credibility determination was based in part on the

 8   finding that Singh submitted a suspect voter identification card and the IJ did not

 9   limit the credibility determination to isolated portions of Singh’s claim.

10         The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in declining to excuse the time and

11   number limits based on Singh’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. A

12   movant raising an ineffective assistance claim must first comply with the

13   procedural requirements laid out in Matter of Lozada. 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A.

14   1988); see Jian Yun Zheng v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 409 F.3d 43, 46-47 (2d Cir. 2005).

15   Under Lozada, a noncitizen raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must

16   include with their motion an affidavit detailing their agreement with former

17   counsel, proof that the movant notified counsel of the allegations, and a statement

                                              6
 1   as to whether the movant filed a complaint with the proper disciplinary

 2   authorities. Twum v. INS, 411 F.3d 54, 59 (2d Cir. 2005). Failure to comply with

 3   the Lozada requirements constitutes forfeiture of the ineffective assistance claim.

 4   See Jian Yun Zheng, 409 F.3d at 46-47.

 5          The BIA did not err in rejecting Singh’s ineffective assistance claims because

 6   he failed to comply with the Lozada requirements.           Id.   He did not submit

 7   evidence that he had complied with any of the Lozada requirements as to three of

 8   the four attorneys he claimed were ineffective, and although he submitted a letter

 9   addressed to the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Supreme Court of New

10   York alleging ineffective assistance of one attorney, he did not submit evidence

11   that he sent the letter to the Committee. Because Singh did not provide evidence

12   that he substantially complied with the Lozada requirements as to any of his former

13   attorneys, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting his ineffective assistance

14   of counsel claims and declining to excuse the time and number limits on that basis.

15   Id. at 46.

16

17

                                               7
1        For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending

2   motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

3                                      FOR THE COURT:
4                                      Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
5                                      Clerk of Court

                                         8