`Ram v. Lynch
`
`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 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
`6th day of May, two thousand and sixteen.
`
`Present:
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`
`
`For Respondent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, New York.
`
`Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
`Attorney General; Nancy Friedman, Senior
`Litigation Counsel, Sharon M. Clay, Trial Attorney,
`Office of Immigration Litigation, United States
`Department of Justice, Washington D.C.
`____________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 15-18-ag
`
`JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
`GUIDO CALABRESI,
`PETER W. HALL,
`Circuit Judges.
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`DAWINDER RAM,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Dawinder Ram, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a December 9,
`
`2014, decision of the BIA, affirming an October 16, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge
`
`(“IJ”) denying Ram’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
`
`Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dawinder Ram, No. A200 239 615 (B.I.A. Dec. 9,
`
`2014), aff’g No. A200 239 615 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 16, 2012). We assume the parties’
`
`familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
`
`
`
`Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by
`
`the BIA, i.e., minus the bases for denying relief that were not considered by the BIA (the IJ’s
`
`alternative findings that any presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution was
`
`rebutted and that Ram could safely relocate in India to avoid persecution). Xue Hong Yang v.
`
`U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are
`
`well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d
`
`Cir. 2008). The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances, . . . base a
`
`credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant,” and
`
`inconsistencies in the record evidence “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the
`
`applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163–64.
`
`Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination here.
`
`
`
`The IJ reasonably relied on Ram’s demeanor, noting that he was evasive and repeatedly
`
`hesitant during cross-examination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v.
`
`Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding is supported by the record.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`The IJ’s demeanor finding and the overall credibility determination are bolstered by
`
`record inconsistencies regarding Ram’s party affiliation and whether his wife was harassed by a
`
`rival political party after Ram’s departure from India. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
`
`453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67 & n.3. Ram did not
`
`provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.
`
`Having questioned Ram’s credibility, the agency reasonably relied further on his failure
`
`to submit corroborating evidence sufficient to rehabilitate his testimony. See Biao Yang v.
`
`Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). As the agency noted, his wife’s affidavit was
`
`inconsistent with his testimony and it was unclear who had prepared it, and he did not submit
`
`evidence that he had received medical care after allegedly being beaten.
`
`
`
`Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and lack of corroboration findings, the agency’s
`
`adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, and is dispositive of
`
`Ram’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
`
` See 8 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our
`
`review the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
`
`FOR THE COURT:
`
`3