Court Opinion

ID: 9407465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 15:00:29.727254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.570507
License: Public Domain

21-6328
    Singh-Kaur v. Garland
                                                                                       BIA
                                                                                Golovnin, IJ
                                                                               A209 945 874

                         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.

           At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
    Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
    Square, in the City of New York, on the 7th day of July, two thousand twenty-
    three.

    PRESENT:
                    DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
                            Chief Judge,
                    JON O. NEWMAN,
                    BETH ROBINSON,
                     Circuit Judges.
    _____________________________________

    VIKRAMJEET SINGH-KAUR,
            Petitioner,

                    v.                                               21-6328
                                                                     NAC
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
               Respondent.
    _____________________________________

    FOR PETITIONER:                        Anas J. Ahmed, Esq., Jackson Heights, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT:                      Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
                                     Attorney General; Timothy G. Hayes, Senior
                                     Litigation Counsel; Sarai M. Aldana, Trial
                                     Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation,
                                     United States Department of Justice,
                                     Washington, DC.

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

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

DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED

for reconsideration in light of this order.

      Petitioner Vikramjeet Singh-Kaur, a native and citizen of India, seeks review

of a May 17, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a December 12, 2018, decision of

an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).            In re

Vikramjeet Singh-Kaur, No. A 209 945 874 (B.I.A. May 17, 2021), aff’g No. A 209 945

874 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 12, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with

the underlying facts and procedural history.

      We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., considering

only the adverse credibility findings that the BIA relied on. See Xue Hong Yang v.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).   We review an adverse

credibility determination “under the substantial evidence standard,” Hong Fei Gao
                                          2
v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the administrative findings of fact

are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude

to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

      Singh-Kaur alleged that he was a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal

Amritsar Party (also referred to as the Mann Party) and that he was beaten twice

by members of the rival Bharatiya Janta Party (“BJP”) for refusing to join that

party. CAR 95‒99. He testified that the attacks occurred in April and June 2017. Id.

The IJ found that the petitioner was not credible, CAR 52‒53, and the BIA found

“no clear error” in the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, CAR 3.

      Although we have limited authority to question the agency’s determination

that a petitioner lacked credibility, this is the rare case where the agency’s

reasoning is sufficiently flawed to warrant a remand.

      First, the IJ noted that the petitioner “was asked why he joined his political

party[,] and he said that they serve society and organize blood donation camps, as

well as help poor girls who are married off.” CAR 49. Nevertheless, the IJ found

that “the [petitioner] could not specifically tell the Court why he joined his political

party.” CAR 50. The record is to the contrary. The petitioner told the IJ precisely

why he had joined his political party. CAR 95.

                                           3
      Second, the IJ noted that the June 25, 2017, letter from Dr. Ompurkash Singla

“omits the fact that the [petitioned] was attacked on April 10, 2017 and, in fact, was

treated by this doctor.” CAR 50.

      This use of Dr. Singla’s letter to deem the petitioner inconsistent is flawed.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that Dr. Singla was asked to make a

report of all occasions when he treated the petitioner. On the contrary, it appears

that his brief five-line letter was written for the sole purpose of providing an

assessment of the petitioner’s ability to resume his activity after his treatment for

the June attack. The last line reports: “He is fit to join on 26.06.2017.” Ex. 5, CAR

126. To make that assessment, Dr. Singa had no reason to refer to his treatment of

the petitioner after the April attack. His letter reads in full: “This is to certify that

[petitioner] was under my treatment with multiple soft tissue injuries since

15.06.2017. I advised him rest for 10 days along with treatment. He is fit to join on

26.06.2017.” Id.

      Third, the agency relied on an inconsistency between affidavits from

petitioner’s wife, sister, and uncle and an affidavit from Gurmeet Singh. The three

affidavits from the family members state that petitioner went to a village doctor.

The affidavit of Gurmeet Singh, a neighbor, says petitioner was taken to a hospital.

                                           4
CAR 51. The neighbor’s arguably inconsistent characterization of the place of

treatment, relied on by the IJ, is an insufficient basis to indicate that the petitioner

is inconsistent.

      Fourth, petitioner testified, and his family’s affidavits said, that the family

had not been contacted by the BJP party after he left India, but a letter from Iqbal

Singh Tiwana, the political and media advisor of the Mann Party, says that the

party is still harassing the family. It is not clear why the fact that Singh Tiwana

thinks the opposition party is still harassing the family shows that the petitioner is

not credible.

      For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, and the case

is REMANDED for reconsideration in light of this order.

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

                                           5