Singh v. Rosen

S

16-4150 Singh v. Rosen BIA Christensen, IJ A205 585 883 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 29th day of December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JARNAIL SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 v. 16-4150 16 NAC 17 18 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent.* 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Russell J. E. 28 Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 John D. Williams, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Jarnail Singh, a native and citizen of India, 9 seeks review of a November 16, 2016 decision of the BIA 10 affirming a December 16, 2015 decision of an Immigration Judge 11 (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of 12 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re Jarnail Singh, No. A205 585 883 (B.I.A. Nov. 14 16, 2016), aff’g No. A205 585 883 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 15 16, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 19 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 20 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 21 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 22 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 23 In reviewing credibility, the agency must “[c]onsider[] 24 the totality of the circumstances,” and may base a finding on 2 1 an applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the 2 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies or omissions …

Original document

Add comment