Gurpreet Singh v. Jeff Sessions
687 F. App'x 499
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Gurpreet Singh, an Indian national and Sikh, entered the U.S. without authorization and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming police beatings in India for his Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar political activity.
- At immigration proceedings Singh testified to three arrests and beatings (Dec 2009, Apr 2010, Jun 2010) and submitted documentary evidence including medical notes, a party membership letter, and notarized statements from acquaintances.
- The IJ found Singh not credible, concluding key documentary evidence contradicted his testimony (notably a hospital note stating Singh was “admitted” during his alleged custody dates and an Amritsar letter dated March 2009 that nonetheless listed Singh’s Ohio address).
- The IJ also questioned the authenticity/independent authorship of multiple corroborating letters, noting many were nearly identical and notarized on the same date by the same notary.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, adopting its reasoning; Singh petitioned for review in the Sixth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ’s adverse-credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence | Singh: inconsistencies were trivial or explained by language/cultural barriers; IJ cherry-picked facts | Government: documentary inconsistencies undercut Singh’s testimony and explanations were implausible | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports adverse-credibility finding |
| Whether Singh established a well-founded fear of persecution for asylum | Singh: his testimony of police beatings and threats established fear and membership in political group | Government: credibility failure means Singh failed to show well-founded fear | Held: Denied asylum due to non-credible testimony |
| Whether Singh met higher standards for withholding of removal (INA) and CAT relief | Singh: same factual record supports mandatory relief | Government: heightened burdens require credible evidence; claimant failed | Held: Denied — failure on asylum grounds forecloses withholding/CAT relief |
| Whether IJ improperly relied on inconsistencies that were not "heart of the claim" under REAL ID Act | Singh: pre-REAL ID case law limits adverse findings; inconsistencies were minor | Government: REAL ID allows consideration of any inconsistency in totality | Held: REAL ID governs; IJ permissibly considered the inconsistencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Hachem v. Holder, 656 F.3d 430 (6th Cir. 2011) (review standards when BIA adopts IJ and adds commentary)
- Gilaj v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2005) (procedural rule for reviewing combined BIA/IJ decisions)
- Hassan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2010) (substantial-evidence standard for credibility findings)
- Marouf v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 174 (6th Cir. 2016) (REAL ID Act allows IJs to consider any inconsistency)
- Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941 (6th Cir. 2004) (framework for asylum and withholding burdens)
- Mohammed v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2007) (failure to show well-founded fear generally forecloses withholding/CAT relief)
- Slyusar v. Holder, 740 F.3d 1068 (6th Cir. 2014) (adverse credibility fatal when applicant relies principally on testimony)
- Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2015) (warning against cherry-picking inconsistencies)