Jatinder Singh v. Jefferson Sessions, III
880 F.3d 220
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Jatinder Singh, from Punjab, India, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 2014 and was placed in removal proceedings after a credible-fear interview in December 2014.
- In the credible-fear interview Singh gave statements that conflicted with later testimony about his membership in the Simrat Mann Jit (Sikh separatist) party.
- Singh filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, alleging persecution based on political opinion, religion, and membership in a particular social group; he submitted medical reports diagnosing PTSD.
- The IJ found Singh competent to proceed (counsel and IJ observed he could communicate and testify coherently) and denied a separate competency hearing.
- The IJ and then the BIA made an adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies about party membership and activity, and found the documentary evidence insufficiently probative.
- Singh appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing the IJ/BIA should have assessed credibility in light of his PTSD under Matter of J-R-R-A- and applied that decision’s safeguard; he did not contest competency on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ/BIA should have applied J-R-R-A- safeguards when assessing credibility | Singh: PTSD diagnosis could have affected his inconsistent statements; J-R-R-A- safeguard should lead to accepting his subjective belief despite inconsistencies | DHS/BIA: Singh was found competent and PTSD did not affect his ability to testify coherently, so J-R-R-A- safeguards are inapplicable | Court: J-R-R-A- safeguard applies only where mental illness affects coherence or competency; here record shows competency and coherent testimony, so safeguard not triggered |
| Whether IJ/BIA’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence | Singh: PTSD and supporting documents undermine reliance on inconsistent interview statements; documentary evidence corroborates | DHS/BIA: Inconsistencies between credible-fear interview and hearing testimony, plus weaknesses in documentary evidence, support adverse credibility finding | Court: Deferential review; inconsistencies and documentary weaknesses provided specific, cogent reasons—adverse credibility determination upheld |
| Whether credible-fear interview record was reliable for credibility purposes | Singh: Interview inconsistencies may be unreliable without competency finding at that time | DHS/BIA: Interview record bears indicia of reliability; applicant had opportunity to explain inconsistencies later | Court: Interview record was sufficiently reliable and Singh failed to satisfactorily explain discrepancies when competent |
| Whether documentary evidence compelled credibility | Singh: Death certificate, medical records, party statement, family statements corroborate claim | DHS/BIA: Documents lacked cause-of-death/injury detail and family statements were interested and not cross-examined | Court: Documents were not so compelling as to compel reversal of adverse credibility finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir.) (standards on reviewing BIA/IJ conclusions)
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir.) (substantial-evidence review of credibility; factfinder deference)
- Chun v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76 (5th Cir.) (factfinder’s duty to assess witness credibility)
- Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339 (5th Cir.) (adverse credibility determinations require specific, cogent reasons)
- Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (totality-of-circumstances standard for credibility)
- Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.) (reliance on credible-fear interview summaries when indicia of reliability present)
- Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.) (reviewing BIA adoption of IJ reasoning)