Singh-Kaur v. Sessions
697 F. App'x 52
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Manpreet Singh-Kaur, an Indian national and politically active Sikh, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on alleged attacks in Jan. and June 2010 tied to his political activity.
- An IJ denied relief after finding Singh not credible; the BIA affirmed on April 26, 2016. Singh petitioned for review in this Court.
- The adverse credibility finding rested on inconsistencies and omissions between Singh’s testimony and supporting documents (a friend’s letter, parents’ affidavit, and a party letter) about medical treatment and whether prior attacks were reported.
- The IJ gave diminished weight to corroborating letters and affidavits because they came from interested witnesses, were unsworn, and authors were unavailable for cross-examination.
- Singh also submitted supplemental country-conditions evidence to the BIA; the BIA declined to consider it on appeal and denied remand, finding the evidence not new or outcome-altering.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility based on inconsistent accounts of medical treatment | Singh: discrepancies explained as misunderstanding/ sequence (village doctor then hospital) | Govt: letter best read to say village doctor treated them for 2–3 weeks; explanation implausible | Court: Upheld adverse credibility; factfinder may choose between two reasonable readings |
| Omissions in corroborating documents (parents’ affidavit; party letter) | Singh: omissions are inadvertent or because he only sought membership confirmation | Govt: omissions undermine credibility; letters should mention injuries/attacks if true | Court: Upheld reliance on omissions as equivalent to inconsistencies for credibility purposes |
| Weight of corroborating evidence (interested/unavailable authors) | Singh: letters/affidavits should rehabilitate his testimony | Govt: letters are unsworn, from interested witnesses, and authors unavailable for cross-exam — entitled to little weight | Court: Agreed; agency reasonably gave diminished weight and corroboration did not rehabilitate credibility |
| BIA refusal to consider supplemental country evidence / remand | Singh: BIA should consider new country-conditions evidence or remand to IJ | Govt: Board limited by no factfinding on appeal; evidence was not new/material to justify remand | Held: Denied — Singh waived challenge to BIA’s finding that evidence was neither new nor likely to alter outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court may review both IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act totality-of-circumstances credibility standard and deference to IJ credibility findings)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (applicant must show a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to credit testimony)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (if two permissible views of evidence exist, factfinder’s choice is not clearly erroneous)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate can bear on credibility)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (letters from interested witnesses may be given little weight)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (weight of applicant’s evidence lies largely within IJ’s discretion)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (discredited factual predicate defeats related claims for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief)
- Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (movant seeking remand must show new evidence would likely alter result)
- Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1988) (standards for motions to reopen/remand)