Jatinder Singh v. Jefferson Sessions, III

Case: 16-60059 Document: 00514317632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-60059 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED JATINDER SINGH, January 23, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Petitioner Clerk v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: Jatinder Singh petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) to deny Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protections under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, contending that his diagnosis with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder should have been taken into consideration when determining whether inconsistencies in his statements rendered his testimony not credible. For the following reasons, we deny the petition for review. Case: 16-60059 Document: 00514317632 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 No. 16-60059 I. Jatinder Singh, a young man from Punjab, India, entered the United States illegally in December 2014 at the age of 18. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) initiated removal proceedings against Singh, charging that he was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) because he entered the country without valid entry documentation. On December 30, 2014, Singh was interviewed by an Asylum Officer (“AO”) to determine whether he had a credible fear of returning to India. Singh waived his right to have his attorney present at the interview. He told the AO that the police in India had arrested him in 2013 due to his father’s political affiliation, beat him in January 2014, and “beat him up . . . many times.” According to Singh, the police said that they were “going to kill [him] because [his] dad joined the Simrat Mann Jit party,” 1 a Sikh separatist party that advocates for a separate Sikh nation in Punjab called Khalistan. The AO asked if Singh was also a member of that party, and Singh replied, “No. Not me.” The AO then noted that Singh had told agents at the border that he was afraid to return to India because he “would be harmed because of the party [he] supported,” and asked him to explain the discrepancy. Singh said, “No, I did not say that. I was not with the party. It was my dad. First they beat my dad very badly too.” He further explained that the police had taken his father in January 2011 and “beat[en] him up so much that he died because of the beating.” When the AO asked if he ever showed support for the Mann party, Singh said “No, m[a’a]m. Not me. Never.” Based on the interview, the AO determined that Singh was “not credible” because his “[t]estimony was 1 The Simrat Mann Jit party is also known as the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar party. 2 Case: 16-60059 Document: 00514317632 Page: 3 Date ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals