Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284

Maninder Singh Ghotra, an Indian national, conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, claiming persecution based on Sikh religion and membership in the Mann Party.
He submitted live testimony, affidavits from family/friends, an Indian newspaper article reporting an August 2012 attack, a doctor’s note for hospitalization, and country-condition reports on anti‑Sikh and anti‑Mann Party violence.
The Immigration Judge found Ghotra not credible and denied relief; the BIA issued its own written decision affirming based on inconsistencies among Ghotra’s asylum application, testimony, and supporting affidavits.
Ghotra appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing the BIA erred in (1) its adverse credibility determination and (2) failing to discuss and consider corroborating documentary evidence.
The Fifth Circuit confined review to the BIA decision, applying substantial-evidence review to factual findings and de novo review to legal questions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA’s adverse credibility finding was supported	Ghotra: inconsistencies were omissions/minor and corroborating evidence should outweigh them	BIA: specific inconsistencies and contradictions between testimony and affidavits support disbelief	Held: BIA credibility finding supported by substantial evidence; affirmed
Whether the BIA may rely on omissions/subsidiary contradictions	Ghotra: omissions shouldn’t justify adverse credibility when not central to claim	BIA: may consider any inconsistency or omission under totality-of-circumstances	Held: BIA permissibly relied on omissions and subsidiary contradictions
Whether BIA failed to consider corroborating documentary evidence	Ghotra: BIA selectively discussed affidavits and ignored supporting reports/articles that corroborate anti‑Sikh/Mann Party violence	BIA: documents reiterate background and do not resolve testimonial inconsistencies or independently establish eligibility	Held: No procedural error; BIA gave full and fair consideration and need not discuss every piece of evidence
Whether remand required because BIA did not address every corroborating item	Ghotra: remand warranted to evaluate omitted evidence’s impact	BIA/Respondent: evidence is reiterative and does not compel relief even if considered	Held: No remand; evidence does not compel reversal and argument that omitted items independently establish eligibility was waived

Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (review limited to BIA opinion when BIA issues its own decision)
Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2018) (adverse credibility must be supported by specific and cogent reasons from the record)
Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806 (5th Cir. 2017) (review de novo where BIA applied inappropriate standard or failed necessary findings)
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (BIA may rely on any inconsistency or omission under the totality-of-circumstances standard)
Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004) (asylum requires subjective fear and objective reasonableness; credibility weighed with other evidence)
Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2002) (withholding of removal standard is "more likely than not" and BIA need not write at length on every contention)
Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 1996) (court reviews procedurally to ensure full and fair consideration of issues)