Kaur v. Sessions
699 F. App'x 50
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioners Rupinder Kaur and Gurminder Singh, Indian nationals, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in the U.S. after alleged political persecution of Singh in India.
- The IJ denied relief on credibility grounds; the BIA affirmed on July 14, 2014; petitioners sought review in the Second Circuit.
- Record contained multiple inconsistent statements across two asylum applications, testimony, and statements to government investigators (including contradictory arrival dates and conflicting assertions about Singh’s alleged arrest/death).
- Petitioners admitted submitting a false entry date on an application to meet the one-year filing deadline and admitted past misrepresentations to obtain a U.S. visa; they also omitted Singh’s 2008 arrest for assault from their applications.
- The IJ observed demeanor issues (including apparent coaching of Kaur by Singh) at the merits hearing; the agency relied on the totality of inconsistencies and demeanor to make an adverse credibility finding.
- The Second Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and denied the petition for review, concluding the adverse credibility determination was supported and dispositive of all relief claims; the court did not reach the asylum time-bar question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility based on inconsistent statements | Kaur/Singh argued inconsistencies were overstated and not dispositive | Government argued totality of inconsistencies, false statements, and omissions warranted disbelief | Court held inconsistencies (including claiming Singh arrested/possibly dead while he was in US) supported adverse credibility finding |
| Effect of false statements and omissions on claims | Kaur/Singh argued isolated errors should not defeat their claims | Government argued falsehoods and omissions infected entire uncorroborated claim | Court held false statements and omissions undermined all relief (asylum, withholding, CAT) |
| Demeanor and coaching observed at hearing | Petitioners implied demeanor concerns were minor or mischaracterized | Government emphasized IJ’s credibility assessment based on observation of coaching and responsiveness | Court deferred to IJ’s demeanor finding and incorporated it into credibility ruling |
| Asylum one-year filing/time-bar | Kaur argued agency erred on time-bar denial (raised below) | Government maintained time-bar and lack of excuse barred asylum | Court did not decide time-bar because adverse credibility determination was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act allows adverse credibility findings based on totality including demeanor and inconsistencies)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (single material inconsistency can support adverse credibility)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (agency need not accept merely plausible explanations for inconsistencies)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (false testimony or documents can infect an alien’s uncorroborated evidence)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (credibility findings can be dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims)