Harbinder Singh v. Jefferson Sessions, 700 F. App'x 647

Harbinder Singh, an Indian national and Sikh, entered the U.S. illegally in 1990 and applied for asylum in 1993 based on religion and political support for the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann (Mann) party.
At a 1999 removal hearing and a 2004 merits hearing, an Immigration Judge found Singh not credible and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT protection; the BIA affirmed in 2005.
In 2013 Singh moved to reopen under the changed-country-conditions exception to the 90-day filing rule, submitting news articles, a State Department report, and affidavits alleging new police harassment in India (including 2013 threats tied to alleged U.S.-based financing of militants).
The BIA denied the 2014 motion to reopen, finding Singh’s new evidence did not show materially changed conditions and giving diminished weight to the relatives’ affidavits and parts of Singh’s statement.
The Ninth Circuit majority affirmed for abuse-of-discretion, holding the documentary and testimonial evidence did not demonstrate material change or was properly discounted; a dissent would have granted review, faulting the BIA for importing the prior adverse credibility finding into the motion-to-reopen context.

Issue	Singh's Argument	Government/BIA Argument	Held
Whether the motion to reopen falls within the changed-country-conditions exception to the 90-day rule	New 2013 evidence shows increased targeting/harassment of Sikh activists and low-level Mann supporters, so exception applies	Evidence does not show a material or qualitative change since 2004	Denied — evidence did not demonstrate materially changed conditions
Whether the BIA improperly applied the IJ’s 2004 adverse credibility finding to new affidavits and statements	The 2013 affidavits present new, distinct facts (post-2004 threats) and should be credited unless inherently unbelievable	BIA appropriately gave diminished weight to parts of the new statements and affidavits for specified reasons	Denied — BIA did not abuse discretion in discounting the evidence as it legitimately relied on independent grounds
Whether the documentary evidence (news, State Dept. report) was material and newly available	The reports corroborate changed conditions for Sikh militants and sympathizers	Reports reflect ongoing concerns but not a material change affecting low-level supporters since 2004	Denied — BIA reasonably found the reports not to reflect a material change
Standard of review for denial of motion to reopen	N/A (context)	N/A	Review is for abuse of discretion; majority applied that standard and affirmed

Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review: BIA denial of motion to reopen reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Yang v. Lynch, 822 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 2016) (new affidavits in a motion to reopen cannot be discredited solely by prior adverse credibility findings unless clearly contradictory)
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (past adverse credibility findings do not automatically defeat new, noncontradicted evidence in a motion to reopen)
Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2005) (affidavits submitted with a motion to reopen must be accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable)
Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2004) (appellate court should remand, not make factual findings, when new evidence requires further BIA consideration)