Gurpreet Singh v. Attorney General United States
705 F. App'x 134
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Gurpreet Singh, an Indian national and Sikh from Punjab, was an active supporter of the minority Mann Party and alleges repeated threats and two violent attacks by members of the rival Badal Party; one attack required a 10-day hospitalization.
- Singh relocated to Delhi to avoid persecution, alleges Badal members continued to threaten him there, and subsequently entered the United States seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- DHS placed Singh in removal proceedings; he submitted an affidavit, testimony, and several affidavits from acquaintances in India as corroboration.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, finding Singh not credible and deeming the corroborating affidavits suspicious because of their similarity in format and content.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, adopting the IJ’s credibility and corroboration findings; Singh petitioned this Court for review.
Issues
| Issue | Singh's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by record | IJ’s implausibility findings lacked country-condition grounding; inconsistencies were minor or explainable | IJ’s credibility finding was supported by testimonial inconsistencies and omissions and considered country conditions | Court upheld IJ/BIA: credibility finding supported by substantial evidence despite some extrarecord comments |
| Whether IJ erred by relying on extrarecord information (bench observations, internet search) | Such remarks are impermissible and infected due process | Any extrarecord comments were not relied upon in the ultimate decision | Court found error but not a due process violation; decision stood |
| Whether IJ properly rejected corroborating affidavits from acquaintances | Affidavits should be credited; similarities not dispositive | Affidavits were suspiciously similar in format and content, justifying rejection | Court upheld rejection: IJ’s skepticism supported by record evidence |
| Whether denial of asylum requires denying withholding/CAT relief | Asylum threshold lower; Singh’s claims meritorious | Asylum denial defeats higher-threshold claims | Court held denial of asylum compels denial of withholding and CAT protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandie v. Attorney General, 562 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2009) (reviewing BIA adoption of IJ reasoning)
- Alimbaev v. Attorney General, 872 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2017) (standard for deference to credibility findings)
- Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2003) (requirement that implausibility findings be considered against country conditions)
- Jishiashvili v. Attorney General, 402 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 2005) (credibility determinations must be supported by the record)
- Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587 (3d Cir. 2003) (limits on IJ reliance on impermissible conjecture and extrarecord matters)
- Chen v. Gonzalez, 434 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2005) (isolated minor inconsistencies may be insignificant)
- Yu v. Attorney General, 513 F.3d 346 (3d Cir. 2008) (asylum threshold lower than withholding/CAT; denial of asylum requires denial of higher protections)