Balwinder Singh v. Jefferson Sessions, 14-72459

Petitioner Balwinder Singh applied for asylum; IJ found him not credible and denied relief; BIA affirmed. Singh appealed to Ninth Circuit under REAL ID Act standards (application filed after May 11, 2005).
IJ relied on perceived inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony (dates of marriage, date he joined a political party, initial misidentification of a political candidate, discrepancies about who denied him fair crop prices) and on documentary issues (notarized passport copy, lack of originals).
Singh explained some discrepancies as oversight or interpreter/cultural issues and said he could not produce original identity documents, offering explanations why originals were unavailable.
IJ also relied on demeanor (nervousness, panicked expression about passport notary stamps, hesitation) as a basis for adverse credibility; BIA deferred to those demeanor findings.
Ninth Circuit found legal errors: IJ/BIA failed to allow explanation for inconsistencies, treated trivial date discrepancies as damaging, and did not apply REAL ID Act corroboration standards to Singh’s inability to produce originals.
Court remanded to BIA with instructions to remand to IJ for a hearing giving Singh opportunity to explain inconsistencies and to make a new credibility determination; separate petition challenging BIA’s sua sponte denial to reopen was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse credibility based on inconsistent testimony	Singh: discrepancies were trivial or oversight; he was not given chance to explain; language/interpreter issues could explain differences	IJ/BIA: inconsistencies undermined credibility	Court: Reversed—many discrepancies were trivial or unexplained because IJ denied opportunity to explain; error to rely on them
Failure to produce corroborative evidence	Singh: originals unavailable and he explained why; REAL ID Act allows excuse if evidence cannot reasonably be obtained	IJ/BIA: lack of originals undercut identity claims	Court: Reversed—IJ/BIA failed to apply REAL ID Act corroboration rules and consider whether documents reasonably unavailable
Demeanor as basis for credibility	Singh: demeanor findings insufficient or not tied to specific noncredible aspects	IJ/BIA: nervousness and panicked expression supported adverse finding	Court: Mixed—some specific demeanor observations (panicked look re: notary) were entitled to deference, but demeanor alone did not cure other legal errors
BIA refusal to sua sponte reopen proceedings	Singh: BIA should reopen sua sponte to consider relief	BIA: declined to exercise sua sponte discretion	Court: Dismissed challenge for lack of jurisdiction over sua sponte denial

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (IJ must consider applicant’s explanation for perceived inconsistencies)
Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2014) (notice and opportunity to explain required before drawing adverse inference; corroboration notice rules)
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (minor date discrepancies that do not enhance claim are not probative of lack of credibility; corroboration standards)
Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2003) (IJ should consider cultural/educational background and interpreter issues)
Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1999) (deference to demeanor-based credibility findings)
Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2017) (detailed discussion of demeanor deference and totality of circumstances in upholding adverse credibility)
Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (review adverse credibility by addressing BIA grounds in light of IJ rationale)
Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2005) (remand appropriate where credibility determination infected by legal error)
Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 2011) (no jurisdiction to review BIA’s sua sponte denial to reopen)