Amarjit Singh v. Jefferson Sessions
696 F. App'x 300
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Amarjit Singh and family petitioned to challenge an IJ’s removal order and the BIA’s dismissal of their appeal after Singh’s lawful permanent resident status was rescinded.
- The government presented an asylum application filed for “Amardeep Singh” accompanied by a fingerprint card bearing Singh’s fingerprints but signed “Amardeep Singh.”
- Singh gave inconsistent testimony about whether he signed the fingerprint card or only blank papers; the IJ found these inconsistencies central and made adverse credibility findings.
- The IJ concluded the government proved by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that Singh willfully misrepresented a material fact on an immigration application, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).
- Because of that misrepresentation, Singh was found inadmissible and ineligible for adjustment of status, supporting rescission of his LPR status and the resulting removal order.
- Singh also argued procedural/due-process errors (refusal to hear oral testimony from a witness; rushing decision), which the court rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over direct petition from IJ order (No. 13-71013) | Singh: Court may review IJ order directly | Government: BIA review required before appellate review | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because BIA review not exhausted |
| Validity of rescission of LPR status based on falsified asylum application | Singh: He did not willfully sign or submit falsified documents; testimony supports innocence | Government: Fingerprint card with his prints and multiple contradictions support willfulness | Rescission/sustains removability upheld; substantial evidence supports finding of willful misrepresentation |
| Sufficiency of evidence standard applied at rescission | Singh: Evidence is insufficient to meet "clear, unequivocal, and convincing" standard | Government: Evidence met the clear and convincing threshold | Court: Substantial evidence supports the IJ/BIA finding under the required standard |
| Alleged due process violations at the rescission hearing | Singh: IJ refused to hear oral testimony from brother, failed to consider submitted statements, and indicated rush to decide | Government: Counsel accepted written declaration; IJ acted as neutral factfinder and considered submissions | Court: No due process violation; counsel accepted written declaration, IJ not required to hear oral testimony, and Singh could reasonably present his case |
Key Cases Cited
- Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927 (9th Cir.) (BIA review is required to exhaust administrative remedies before judicial review)
- Baria v. Reno, 94 F.3d 1335 (9th Cir.) (rescission reviewable as part of deportation order review)
- Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir.) (standards for adverse credibility determinations)
- Colmenar v. I.N.S., 210 F.3d 967 (9th Cir.) (neutral factfinder requirement and standards for IJ conduct)
- Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir.) (test for whether alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case)
- Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614 (9th Cir.) (discussion of reasonable presentation of a case in immigration proceedings)