Nishan Singh v. Jefferson Sessions, 698 F. App'x 895

Background

Petitioner Nishan Singh sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; the BIA adopted the IJ’s denial based on an adverse credibility finding.
The IJ relied substantially on perceived inconsistencies between Singh’s 2009 testimony and an asylum officer’s 2008 interview notes (no transcript) and on doubts about the authenticity/legibility of an identification card Singh produced.
This appeal is reviewed under pre-REAL ID Act Ninth Circuit standards: inconsistencies must go to the heart of the claim to support adverse credibility (Mendoza Manimbao standard).
The asylum officer testified at the IJ hearing but had no specific recollection of Singh’s interview and could not corroborate his notes; the notes were untranscribed and Singh had no contemporaneous opportunity to review them.
The majority held the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence (overreliance on unverified asylum-officer notes and speculative doubts about ID documents) and remanded for the agency to determine eligibility for asylum/withholding/CAT on the open record.
The dissent would have denied review, arguing the officer’s detailed notes and impeachment value supported the IJ’s credibility determination and that key discrepancies and the suspect ID card went to the heart of the claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ’s adverse credibility finding (based on inconsistencies with asylum-officer notes) was supported by substantial evidence	Singh: asylum-officer notes were unverified, officer lacked specific recollection, no transcript or opportunity to review, so inconsistencies don’t undermine testimony	BIA/IJ: officer’s detailed notes and testimony were reliable impeachment evidence; inconsistencies impeach Singh	Majority: adverse credibility not supported; IJ improperly relied on unverified notes; remand
Whether alleged inconsistencies went to the heart of Singh’s claim	Singh: remaining inconsistencies were immaterial and did not affect core claim	BIA/IJ: discrepancies (e.g., timing of arrest) were significant and striking	Majority: inconsistencies did not go to the heart; insufficient to support adverse credibility
Whether IJ permissibly rejected Singh’s identification card as unreliable	Singh: IJ’s doubts were speculative and ignored other identity documents Singh produced	BIA/IJ: physical anomalies in card (washed photo but clear signature/date) raised suspicion about authenticity	Majority: IJ’s rejection rested on speculation without record support; other identity evidence not acknowledged; ID doubt unsupported
Whether CAT relief denial must be reconsidered given credibility ruling	Singh: adverse credibility tainted CAT denial; agency should reassess on remand	BIA/IJ: denial premised on credibility finding that undermined CAT showing	Held: Because credibility finding affected CAT denial, remand required for agency to determine CAT eligibility

Key Cases Cited

Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing standards of review for credibility and BIA decisions)
Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2003) (pre-REAL ID Act rule: inconsistencies must go to the heart of the claim to support adverse credibility)
Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1285 (9th Cir. 2010) (cautioning against overreliance on asylum-officer notes absent transcript or verification)
Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2005) (limitations on using asylum-officer notes to impeach when applicant had no chance to explain)
Lin v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility cannot rest on speculation about document authenticity)
Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2004) (airport/interview statements may be reliable impeachment if indicia of reliability are present)
Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard for reviewing factual findings on CAT relief)
Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2011) (review standard for CAT-related factual findings)