Gurmeet Singh v. Jefferson Sessions, III
699 F. App'x 418
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Gurmeet Singh, an Indian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s denial and Singh’s request to hold the case in abeyance pending a motion to reopen was denied.
- The IJ and BIA found Singh not credible based largely on his omission of an alleged attack on his family home from both his credible-fear interview and his written asylum application—a reported catalyst for his departure from India.
- The agencies also relied on a lack of corroborating evidence (no supporting statements from Singh’s father, other family members, or party officials) when assessing credibility.
- Singh later blamed his attorney for failing to obtain corroboration but did not raise ineffective assistance of counsel before the BIA.
- The IJ and BIA found Singh could avoid persecution by internally relocating outside Punjab; Singh pointed to no record evidence showing the national government or the Badal Party would pursue him elsewhere.
- Singh briefed only asylum; he did not brief withholding or CAT claims, which the court treated as abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse-credibility determination | Omissions and inconsistencies are minor and not central to asylum claim | Omission of the home attack from interview/application undermines credibility | Court affirmed adverse-credibility finding; omissions were material and substantial-evidence supports denial |
| Lack of corroboration | Lack of corroboration should not be fatal; now blames counsel for failing to obtain evidence | IJ/BIA relied on absence of corroboration to support adverse-credibility finding | Court upheld reliance on lack of corroboration; ineffective-assistance claim dismissed for failure to exhaust before BIA |
| Internal relocation | Singh asserts fear of persecution such that relocation is not feasible | IJ/BIA found no evidence the government/party would persecute him outside Punjab | Court held relocation was a viable alternative; petitioner failed to show compelled contrary result |
| Withholding/CAT claims | Seeks only asylum relief | Government notes petitioner did not brief withholding or CAT | Court deemed withholding and CAT claims abandoned and did not address them |
Key Cases Cited
- Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2007) (review of BIA decisions that adopt or rely on IJ decisions)
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard for factual findings and adverse-credibility review)
- Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2001) (exhaustion requirement for ineffective-assistance claims before the BIA)
- Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2001) (standard for internal relocation as an alternative to asylum)
- Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 2004) (failure to brief an argument results in abandonment)