Parminder Singh v. Attorney General United States, 713 F. App'x 95

Background

Singh, an Indian national and member of a minority political party, entered the U.S. in 2015 without inspection and conceded removability.
He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, alleging a 2015 assault by rival-party members and police refusal to record his complaint.
Singh submitted supporting documents including parents’ affidavits and a party letter; parents’ affidavits referred to a brother "Gurjeet" whom Singh said he did not know.
At the merits hearing Singh proceeded pro se after counsel withdrew; the IJ required Singh to sign his application and questioned inconsistencies in submitted documents.
The IJ found Singh not credible based on allegedly fraudulent affidavits and inconsistent documentary evidence, and also found lack of corroboration and that a single 2015 incident did not constitute past persecution; CAT relief was denied.
The BIA affirmed the IJ on credibility, corroboration, and merits; it declined to consider new evidence submitted on appeal and concluded Singh waived meaningful challenge to CAT.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process at merits hearing	IJ failed to explain significance of proceeding pro se and did not provide list of pro bono counsel at the hearing	Singh was given notices including list of pro bono providers, offered continuance, and had opportunity to present evidence	No due process violation: Singh chose to proceed pro se, was offered continuance, and received adequate opportunity to present case
Credibility finding	Singh: testimony generally consistent; documentary inconsistencies resulted from counsel error, not fabrication	Government: parents’ affidavits contained demonstrable falsehoods undermining credibility	Adverse credibility upheld: fraudulent/false documents justified disbelief and substantial-evidence standard not overcome
Corroboration requirement	Singh: produced party letter and could not realistically obtain further documents from India; IJ denied time/opportunity to corroborate	Government: Singh failed to obtain available corroboration (e.g., party leader affidavit) and did not show unavailability	Corroboration determination upheld: record does not compel finding that corroborating evidence was unavailable
Merits of asylum/withholding and CAT	Singh: suffered political-motivated assault and police refusal to protect, warranting asylum/withholding/CAT	Government: single incident insufficient for persecution; no evidence of torture or government acquiescence	Asylum and withholding denied (single incident insufficient; no well-founded fear/clear probability). CAT claim dismissed for failure to meaningfully challenge before BIA (jurisdictional bar)

Key Cases Cited

Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) (review ordinarily limited to BIA decisions)
Sandie v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 562 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2009) (review of IJ where BIA adopts IJ opinion)
Quao Lin Dong v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 638 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2011) (standards for reviewing IJ/BIA legal and factual findings)
Jarbough v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 483 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2007) (substantial-evidence standard explanation)
Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 665 F.3d 496 (3d Cir. 2011) (asylum statutory standards)
Chukwu v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 484 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2007) (corroboration and withholding standards)
Kibinda v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 477 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2007) (CAT standard and relation to asylum)
Serrano-Alberto v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 859 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2017) (due process in removal proceedings)
Leslie v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 611 F.3d 171 (3d Cir. 2010) (right to counsel in immigration proceedings)
Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001) (crediting required for asylum/withholding subjective fear)
Lin v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 543 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2008) (exhaustion/waiver of issues on appeal)
Toure v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 443 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2006) (corroboration expectations and proof of unavailability)