SINGH v. SESSIONS III (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Amarjot Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of an October 25, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a June 15, 2015, 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 Amarjot Singh, No. A XXX XX6 671 (B.I.A. Oct. 25, 2016), aff'g No. A XXX XX6 671 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 15, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the BIA's and IJ's decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).

“Considering the totality of the circumstances ․ a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness,” or on inconsistencies or omissions in an applicant's oral and written statements and other record evidence, regardless of whether any such discrepancies “go[ ] to the heart of the applicant's claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166-67. “We defer ․ to an IJ's credibility determination unless ․ it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The agency's adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence.

The agency reasonably relied on omissions from Singh's application and corroborating documents as well as his inconsistent statements about the harm his father suffered in India. See id. (agency reasonably relied on the “cumulative effect” of omissions from both application and supporting letter). Further, Singh's application and supporting letters omitted any mention that he had a brother in the United States who fled India for similar political reasons. And Singh neither presented compelling explanations nor rehabilitated his testimony with a statement from his brother. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (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.” (quotation marks and citation omitted) ); Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007)(agency reasonably relied on a failure to corroborate “because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question”).

We defer to the agency's conclusion that Singh's omissions and inconsistencies undermined his credibility, see Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 166-68 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous․ Rather, a reviewing court must defer to that choice so long as the deductions are not illogical or implausible.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) ), and we conclude that the inconsistencies and omissions provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility determination, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Because Singh's claims were all based on the same factual predicate, the adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.