Bhangu v. Sessions, 680 F. App'x 27

Petitioner Kuldip Singh Bhangu, an Indian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on an alleged attempted killing by his uncle over a land dispute in India.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief after finding Bhangu not credible; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that decision on September 1, 2015.
The IJ based the adverse credibility finding on Bhangu’s evasive demeanor, inconsistencies in testimony (e.g., number of arrests of his father, whether he accompanied his father to the police), and omissions from his written statement (e.g., uncle’s having police arrest him, threats to his wife, mother’s death).
The IJ also discounted corroborating documents (affidavits from father and village leader) because authors were unavailable for cross-examination and contained inconsistencies with Bhangu’s testimony.
Bhangu claimed the interpreter made errors depriving him of due process; the IJ corrected early errors, and the record showed no subsequent interpreter problems.
The Second Circuit reviewed the IJ’s decision (supplemented by the BIA) and denied the petition for review, finding substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination and no prejudicial due process violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse credibility	Bhangu argued his testimony and statements were credible and showed persecution on account of land dispute	Government argued IJ reasonably found demeanor, inconsistencies, omissions, and lack of corroboration undermined credibility	Court held IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence and dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims
Omission of facts from written statement	Bhangu offered explanations for omissions (implicit)	Government argued omissions (police arrest, threats, mother’s death) undermined trustworthiness	Court held omissions, unexplained, justified relying on inconsistency/omission to discredit testimony
Weight of corroborating evidence	Bhangu relied on affidavits from father and village leader and other evidence	Government argued affidavits lacked probative weight due to unavailability for cross-examination and inconsistencies	Court held failure to provide reliable corroboration supported adverse credibility finding
Due process based on interpreter errors	Bhangu contended interpreter errors at hearing prejudiced his case	Government argued errors were identified, corrected, and not prejudicial	Court held IJ cured interpreter issues, Bhangu was not denied a full and fair hearing and suffered no cognizable prejudice

Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for credibility determinations and importance of consistency and corroboration)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (permissible to rely on sparse testimony and demeanor in credibility findings)
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate may bear on credibility)
Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (weight of affidavits when authors unavailable for cross-examination)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility determination can be dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT when claims share same predicate)
Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2007) (due process in immigration proceedings requires full and fair opportunity to present claims)
Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008) (prejudice requirement for due process challenges in immigration cases)