SINGH v. BARR (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

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 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 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, 97 S.Ct. 200, 50 L.Ed.2d 190 (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.