Amardeep Palaha v. Loretta E. Lynch, 671 F. App'x 417

Petitioner Amardeep Singh Palaha, an Indian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, which an IJ denied for lack of credibility; the BIA affirmed and Palaha petitioned for review.
The IJ and BIA relied on perceived material inconsistencies and omissions between Palaha’s written declarations, his testimony, and his parents’ declarations.
Key discrepancies: initial declaration placed first arrest at Division Four police station while parents’ declarations said “C.I.A. station”; Palaha later said he was moved between stations.
Palaha initially omitted seeking medical treatment after his second arrest but later produced a clinic emergency-treatment letter.
The IJ/BIA found these alterations and omissions to be substantial and material, supporting an adverse credibility finding.
For CAT relief, country reports showed general police abuse in India but did not compel a finding that Palaha, a member of his political party, would likely be tortured absent terrorism suspicions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence	Palaha argued discrepancies were resolved by supplemental testimony and did not undermine credibility	Government argued material inconsistencies and omissions warranted disbelief	Court held adverse credibility supported: at least two substantial inconsistencies/omissions justified denial
Whether altered declaration about police stations was material	Palaha contended he clarified that he was moved between stations	Government stressed the alteration was a material inconsistency indicative of fabrication	Court held the alteration provided substantial evidence for adverse credibility
Whether omission of medical treatment was material	Palaha argued later-submitted clinic letter corroborated his injuries	Government argued late supplementation was an unexplained omission that undermined credibility	Court held the omission and later supplementation supported adverse credibility
Whether CAT relief was warranted despite adverse credibility	Palaha relied on country reports showing police abuse in India to show likely torture	Government argued reports didn’t show petitioner specifically would likely be tortured	Court held documentary evidence did not compel CAT relief; denial supported by substantial evidence

Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard: adverse credibility reviewed for substantial evidence; one supported basis suffices)
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2011) (material alterations in declarations can support adverse credibility)
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to testify about critical abuse-related facts can defeat credibility)
Khadka v. Holder, 618 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2010) (record must compel credibility to overturn adverse finding)
Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (where past-torture testimony is not credible, documentary evidence must compel CAT grant)