throbber
15-18-ag
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket