Opinion
20-564 NAC
03-15-2022
JAGDEEP SINGH, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Esq., Jackson Heights, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel; Aric A. Anderson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
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 15th day of March, two thousand twenty-two.
FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Esq., Jackson Heights, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel; Aric A. Anderson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, SUSAN L. CARNEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, Clrcult Judges.
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 Jagdeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a January 16, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming an April 26, 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 Jagdeep Singh, No. A208 182 009 (B.I.A. Jan. 16, 2020), aff'g No. A208 182 009 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 26, 2018). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ's and BIA's decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. 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 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the applicant's or witness's written and oral statements . . ., the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] 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." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). "We defer . . . to an IJ's credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling." Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. Here, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination.
Singh alleged that he was beaten by members of rival political parties who wanted him to convert from Sikhism to Hinduism and to join their parties, and that he was detained and beaten by the police, who were aligned with the rival parties. The agency reasonably relied on Singh's omission of material facts from his application and written statement to find him not credible. Singh testified that his attackers found him in another city after he fled and attempted to attack him again and that the police questioned his mother about him after he left India, but he did not mention these facts in his prior statements. The agency did not err in relying on these omissions as they were material to an asylum claim in that they implicated his ability to safely relocate and his fear of future harm. See Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 78 (holding that "the probative value of a witness's prior silence on particular facts depends on whether those facts are ones the witness would reasonably have been expected to disclose"). The IJ was not required to credit Singh's shifting and unconvincing explanations for these omissions. 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 to credit his testimony" (internal quotation marks omitted)). The agency also did not err by relying on inconsistencies between Singh's statements and documentary evidence about whether he was "locked up." Singh's written statement and supporting letters written by others, which he submitted on his behalf, stated that he was "locked up" by the police on July 9, 2014. In his testimony before the IJ, Singh initially stated that he was locked up that day, but he then disclaimed that he had been "locked up" and, under questioning by the IJ and government counsel, failed to offer any persuasive explanation for why he changed his account. Additionally, an affidavit submitted by Santokh Singh, a leader in Jagdeep Singh's village in India, stated that Jagdeep Singh was locked up for a "few hours," whereas Jagdeep Singh maintained throughout his testimony that he was at the police station for 15 to 20 minutes.
The adverse credibility determination is bolstered by the IJ's demeanor finding, to which we defer. Majidi, 430 F.3d at 81 n.1.
In light of the material omissions and inconsistencies discussed in this order as well as others identified by the agency, and the agency's demeanor finding, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 ("[A]n IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible" (internal quotation marks omitted)). This adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three forms of relief arose from the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
We note, contrary to the position of the BIA and the Government, that Singh did not waive or fail to exhaust his claim for CAT relief because his brief to the BIA challenged the IJ's adverse credibility determination, which was the sole basis for the IJ's denial of all forms of relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.