Amardeep Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch, 803 F.3d 988

Amardeep Singh, an Indian national and low-level member of the Mann Party (political party in Punjab), entered the U.S. without documents in Aug. 2011 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after claiming two beatings by rival Congress Party members for refusing to switch parties.
A DHS asylum officer found Singh had a credible fear; removal proceedings followed and Singh conceded removability.
Singh’s retained counsel missed a rescheduled hearing and later sent an unprepared associate; the IJ granted a continuance but criticized counsel’s preparedness.
At the merits hearing Singh testified (through an interpreter) about the attacks and submitted documentary evidence; the IJ found his testimony inconsistent, evasive, and contradicted by record evidence and country-condition materials.
The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief (finding alleged beatings did not amount to persecution and future fear not well-founded); the Board affirmed, agreed with the adverse credibility finding, and denied Singh’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for lack of prejudice.
Singh petitioned for review; the Eighth Circuit denied the petition, upholding the IJ’s credibility determination and the Board’s rejection of ineffective-assistance relief.

Issue	Singh's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Adverse credibility finding	IJ relied on collateral, tangential inconsistencies and minor errors; testimony about two attacks was consistent and sufficient	IJ properly considered demeanor, inconsistencies with prior statements, evasiveness, and country conditions under the totality of circumstances	Court upheld adverse credibility finding as supported by specific, cogent reasons and substantial evidence
Persecution / well-founded fear	Singh contends past beatings and threats establish past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution	Even if credible, incidents were minor, nonpersecutory, and record/country conditions do not show likely future harm	Denied: incidents did not rise to persecution and no well-founded fear established (alternate IJ finding)
Withholding of removal and CAT relief	Same testimony supports these forms of relief	Claims rest on discredited testimony and lack evidence of torture or government inability/unwillingness to control persecutors	Denied: adverse credibility fatal to these claims
Ineffective assistance of counsel (Lozada framework)	Counsel’s failures (late filings, missing corroboration, unprepared appearance) prejudiced Singh and created hostile hearing atmosphere	Even assuming deficient performance, Singh failed to show prejudice; missing corroboration (hospital record) would not have changed outcome	Denied: no showing of prejudice from counsel’s alleged failures; Board’s denial affirmed

Sandoval-Loffredo v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2005) (substantial-evidence standard for factual findings and final agency action review)
Fesehaye v. Holder, 607 F.3d 523 (8th Cir. 2010) (deference to IJ credibility findings supported by specific, cogent reasons)
Fofanah v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility finding can be fatal to asylum, withholding, and CAT claims when based on same testimony)
Rafiyev v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2008) (no constitutional right to counsel in removal proceedings; Board may consider ineffective-assistance claims under its discretionary authority)
Litvinov v. Holder, 605 F.3d 548 (8th Cir. 2010) (persecution must be sufficiently specific or imminent to support asylum)
Zakirov v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2004) (persecution does not include low-level intimidation and harassment)
Mayemba v. Holder, 776 F.3d 542 (8th Cir. 2015) (IJ best positioned to make credibility findings based on live testimony)
Obleshchenko v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2004) (prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims; one missing document unlikely to compel relief)