Lovepreet Singh v. Merrick Garland, 20-71802

Lovepreet Singh, an Indian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; an IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed his appeal, prompting this petition for review.
The BIA reviewed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for clear error and relied on the IJ’s written opinion and reasons.
The IJ/BIA relied on three express testimonial inconsistencies: timing of Singh’s promotion to Youth Leader, whether he fled or conversed with attackers in the 2017 incident, and whether the Mann Party leader’s name was “Ranjeet” or “Rajinder.”
The IJ also found Singh’s accounts of both the 2017 and 2018 attacks implausible and listed specific reasons; Singh had opportunities at the merits hearing to explain inconsistencies.
The IJ observed verbal and nonverbal demeanor and lack of responsiveness that undermined credibility.
Documentary and country‑condition evidence Singh submitted (including general evidence of Sikh persecution and ID insecurity) did not rehabilitate the specific inconsistencies and implausibilities identified by the IJ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence under the REAL ID Act/totality of circumstances	Singh: IJ/BIA lacked substantial evidence; credibility not undermined by record	BIA/IJ: multiple factors (inconsistencies, implausibility, demeanor, docs) support adverse finding	Court: upheld BIA/IJ; adverse credibility supported under totality of circumstances
Whether Singh’s explanations for testimonial inconsistencies were improperly rejected	Singh: he had explanations and should be credited	BIA/IJ: explanations were considered and found unpersuasive with reasons	Court: upheld rejection; IJ adequately considered and explained why explanations failed
Whether the IJ’s implausibility findings regarding the attacks were proper	Singh: attack narratives were plausible	BIA/IJ: IJ gave specific, cogent reasons why accounts were implausible	Court: upheld implausibility finding as supported and permissible to rely on
Whether documentary evidence rehabilitated Singh’s testimony	Singh: country‑conditions and other documents corroborate and rehabilitate testimony	BIA/IJ: submitted documents are general and do not address the specific inconsistencies/implausibilities	Court: upheld BIA/IJ; documentary evidence did not rehabilitate the challenged testimony

Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2014) (BIA reliance on IJ credibility analysis and review standard)
Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (REAL ID Act totality‑of‑circumstances standard for credibility)
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (IJ must cite record instances supporting credibility factors)
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) (IJ must analyze evidence as a whole, not selectively)
Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2005) (standards for implausibility findings)
Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2003) (implausibility as basis for adverse credibility)
Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2014) (demeanor findings may support adverse credibility)
Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822 (9th Cir. 2021) (respondent’s opportunity to address credibility issues at hearing)
Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2014) (opportunity to explain inconsistencies relevant to credibility)