NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted February 23, 2021 * Decided February 23, 2021 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge No. 20-1660 PARAMJIT SINGH, Petition for Review of Orders from the Petitioner, Board of Immigration Appeals. v. No. A205-935-074 MONTY WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ORDER Paramjit Singh, a citizen of India, challenges the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He maintains that he fears harm based on his political affiliation if he returns to India. Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination, we deny his petition for review. * We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 20-1660 Page 2 In 2013, immigration authorities apprehended Singh after he entered the United States without a valid entry document. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), which he conceded. In his application for immigration relief, Singh—a Sikh from the northern state of Punjab—described the conditions that led him to flee India. Singh explained that he belonged to the Shiromani Akali Dal Amristar Party (also known as the Mann Party), which advocated for the establishment of a Sikh homeland. Based on his membership in that party, he contended that upon return he would be targeted and killed by agents of the Congress Party, one of Punjab’s major political parties. At his hearing before an immigration judge, Singh testified that he had been beaten by Congress Party members on three occasions after attending political rallies in the year before he left India. The IJ denied all relief. As an initial matter, she found Singh’s testimony insufficiently credible or persuasive to support his burden of proof. The IJ discounted Singh’s testimony as vague and unspecific: he knew little about the Mann Party or its strength in Punjab; he could not explain how friends who accompanied him to the rallies were able to evade the attacks while he was not; and he did not specify the nature of his injuries. She also noted inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and affidavits provided by his father and two village residents over the number of times Singh was attacked, his father’s supposed presence at one of the attacks, and the nature of the medical treatment Singh received after each attack. Because she found him not credible, the IJ considered whether Singh provided corroborative evidence sufficient to rehabilitate his testimony, as required by the REAL ID Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B). But the IJ determined that this evidence was insufficient, given that the submitted affidavits were inconsistent with Singh’s testimony, similarly worded, and lacking in detail about his ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals