Pavittar Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16724
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Pavittar Singh, an Indian national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after being charged in the U.S. with immigration violations stemming from unauthorized employment.
- Singh testified that he suffered multiple incidents of violence and police abuse in India (1998, 2005, 2006) because of his membership in the Nirankari Sikh sect.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Singh credible on consistency but deemed his account implausible based on background country reports (including an Amnesty International report) indicating Sikh militant activity ended in the 1990s.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding documentary evidence rendered Singh’s claims implausible and supported an adverse credibility finding.
- The Ninth Circuit majority held that under the REAL ID Act, IJs and the BIA may base adverse credibility findings solely on background evidence and that substantial evidence supported the agency’s implausibility finding; Singh’s petition for review was denied.
- Chief Judge Thomas concurred in principle but dissented on the application, arguing the agency mischaracterized and cherry-picked background evidence and failed to consider the totality of the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Singh) | Defendant's Argument (Government/BIA/IJ) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an adverse credibility determination may rest solely on background evidence under the REAL ID Act | REAL ID Act does not permit discrediting specific testimony solely by general background reports | REAL ID Act permits considering "totality of circumstances," including country reports, to find testimony implausible | Held for Government: REAL ID Act allows background evidence alone to support adverse credibility findings |
| Whether the IJ/BIA’s implausibility finding here is supported by substantial evidence | Singh: Background evidence does not refute his specific claims; reports show ongoing harassment and possible low-level threats | Agency: Reports (Amnesty, State Dept., others) indicate armed Sikh militancy ended in 1990s, undermining Singh’s account of recent militant attacks | Held for Government: Substantial evidence supports implausibility determination |
| Whether the agency relied on speculation rather than record evidence | Singh: Agency speculated and ignored record material that corroborated his testimony | Agency: Cited specific reports and explained how they undermined Singh’s account; not pure conjecture | Held for Government: Decision not speculative; IJ/BIA cited record evidence and gave individualized reasons |
| Whether CAT relief could be denied after adverse credibility in asylum claim | Singh: CAT claim should be assessed independently and not automatically defeated by asylum credibility finding | Agency: CAT claim arose from same statements; allowed to rely on same adverse credibility determination | Held for Government: Proper to deny CAT relief where based on same non-credible statements |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards for reviewing BIA credibility determinations and requirement for specific, cogent reasons)
- Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (credibility findings are factual and conclusive absent compelling contrary evidence)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (standard that reversal requires evidence that compels contrary conclusion)
- Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2005) (country reports may support implausibility findings)
- Zheng v. Ashcroft, 397 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2005) (pre-REAL ID precedent limiting use of country reports to discredit specific testimony)
- Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (pre-REAL ID case on limits of using State Dept. reports to rebut specific testimony)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (explains REAL ID Act’s effect in limiting appellate review of credibility determinations)