Singh v. Barr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: January 3, 2020
• Docket: 18-267
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

18-267 Singh v. Barr BIA Wright, IJ A205 422 118 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 TO 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 3rd day of January. two thousand twenty.

PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

PARVINDERJEET SINGH, Petitioner,

v. 18-267 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Parvinderjeet Singh, pro se, Jamaica, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; Judith R. O’Sullivan, 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 DENIED.

Petitioner Parvinderjeet Singh, a native and citizen of

India, seeks review of a December 29, 2017, decision of the

BIA affirming an April 20, 2017, 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 Parvinderjeet Singh, No. A205

422 118 (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2017), aff’g No. A205 422 118 (Immig.

Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 20, 2017). We assume the parties’

familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s

and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”

Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528

(2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well

established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v.

Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all

relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility

determination on . . . the consistency between the

2 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . ,

the internal consistency of each such statement, the

consistency of such statements with other evidence of

record . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency,

inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s

claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,

163-64 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence supports the

agency’s determination that Singh was not credible as to his

claim that members of his girlfriend’s politically connected

family beat him in India because they wanted him to stop

dating his girlfriend.

The agency reasonably relied on Singh’s inconsistent

statements regarding whether his girlfriend’s father was

involved in the beating, who accompanied him to report the

attack to police, and whether he was beaten with guns. See

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh did not provide

compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. See

Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A

petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation

for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must

demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled

3 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks

omitted)).

Given its findings of inconsistency, the agency’s adverse

credibility determination is supported by substantial

evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That

determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of

removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based

on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444

F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we do not

consider the agency’s alternative burden finding. See INS

v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule

courts and agencies are not required to make findings on

issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results

they reach.”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

stays VACATED.

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