Singh v. Garland
4 F.4th 322
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background
- Daljinder Singh, a member of the Akali Dal Amritsar (Mann Party), alleges two violent assaults by BJP members in Punjab, India, then fled to the U.S. via Mexico after fearing further reprisals; his parents were later attacked in searches for him.
- Singh claims police refused to accept reports and threatened him, and he submitted medical records, witness letters, and photos to support his claim.
- An IJ denied Singh’s asylum and CAT applications, finding him not credible and noting an apparent pattern of highly similar asylum narratives from other Indian applicants; the BIA affirmed.
- The IJ presided over 204 asylum cases from 2014–2019 and denied 203 (99.5%), and during Singh’s hearing the IJ summarized an amalgam of similarities among cases rather than identifying specific documents or providing copies as required by Matter of R-K-K-.
- The Fifth Circuit granted an emergency stay, and in this opinion concluded Singh made a strong showing of likely success on the merits (due process and R-K-K noncompliance) and of irreparable harm, and therefore granted a stay pending review.
Issues
| Issue | Singh's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IJ bias / due process from near-total denial rate | IJ’s 99.5% denial rate and hostile conduct (smirks, eye-rolling) created appearance of bias and deprived Singh of due process | Judge’s remarks alone don’t show bias; high denial rate isn't dispositive | Court: appearance of bias is likely when coupled with other procedural failings; Singh showed likelihood of success on due process claim |
| Reliance on inter‑proceeding similarities (Matter of R‑K‑K‑) | IJ failed to give meaningful notice, copies, and opportunity to explain similarities; composite oral description insufficient | IJ’s oral identification of similarities and reliance on general pattern was adequate | Court: IJ did not follow R‑K‑K‑ safeguards (identify specific similarities, provide copies, allow time to respond), so adverse credibility finding was unreliable |
| Adverse credibility based on documentary/witness inconsistencies | Alleged discrepancies (medical-certificate dates; minor wording differences in witness letter) were explained and, on the whole, record evidence (photos, witnesses, records) supports Singh | Discrepancies undermine Singh’s credibility and support denial | Court: the IJ’s stated inconsistencies were minor and, combined with R‑K‑K‑ procedural failures, do not support the adverse credibility finding |
| Stay factors: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, public interest | Singh likely to succeed on merits; removal would likely expose him to persecution by BJP (irreparable harm); public interest favors avoiding wrongful removal | Government emphasizes orderly removals and that petitioner prolonged process | Court: Singh met the standard for stay—strong showing of likely success and of irreparable harm; public interest favors stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay-of-removal factors and framework emphasizing likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial remarks establish bias only in rare circumstances)
- Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517 (2d Cir. 2007) (discussing use of inter‑proceeding similarities and need for careful review)
- Wang v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing similar vs. identical applications and limits on using inter‑proceeding similarities)
- Leiva‑Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) (irreparable harm inquiry in stay contexts for removal)
- Okpala v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 965 (5th Cir. 2018) (procedural due process applies in deportation/asylum proceedings)
- United States v. Avilez‑Reyes, 160 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1998) (reasonable-person test for appearance of partiality)