Bhinder Singh v. Jefferson Sessions
679 F. App'x 619
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Bhinder Jit Singh, an Indian citizen, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed.
- The BIA relied primarily on the IJ’s adverse credibility determination to reject Singh’s claims.
- The IJ identified multiple inconsistencies in Singh’s accounts about the core events underlying his persecution claim and found portions of his testimony about political affiliation implausible given his own background evidence.
- The IJ also based the adverse credibility finding on Singh’s demeanor at the hearing.
- Singh raised a due-process argument based on allegedly inadequate translation services but did not object to translation at the hearing nor raise the issue before the BIA.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the adverse credibility finding under the substantial-evidence standard and dismissed the unexhausted due-process claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Singh's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence | Singh argued his testimony was credible and the inconsistencies were not dispositive | IJ/BIA argued specific inconsistencies, implausibility, and demeanor supported disbelief | Court upheld adverse credibility finding; substantial evidence supports it |
| Whether inconsistencies went to the heart of the asylum claim | Singh argued inconsistencies were minor and not central | Government argued inconsistencies concerned events central to persecution claim | Court agreed inconsistencies went to the heart and justified disbelief |
| Whether IJ’s demeanor-based assessment was entitled to deference | Singh argued demeanor is unreliable and insufficient | Government argued demeanor is a permissible credibility factor warranting deference | Court gave special deference to demeanor and found it a valid basis among others |
| Whether alleged deficient translation services violated due process | Singh argued poor translation made him appear evasive and deprived him of a fair hearing | Government argued Singh failed to preserve/exhaust the translation claim | Court dismissed this claim for lack of exhaustion/jurisdiction because Singh did not object below |
Key Cases Cited
- Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 2013) (adverse credibility is a factual finding reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ must give specific, cogent reasons to disbelieve testimony)
- Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1994) (requirements for articulable basis to question credibility)
- Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 2003) (one supported ground going to the heart of the claim is sufficient)
- Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2001) (inconsistencies about core events go to the heart of a claim)
- Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2005) (testimony implausible in light of background evidence can support disbelief)
- Paredes-Urrestarazu v. INS, 36 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 1994) (special deference to IJ demeanor findings)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars review of certain claims)