Singh v. Garland
20-60368
| 5th Cir. | Jul 26, 2021Background:
- Petitioner Sukhmaan Singh, an Indian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; an IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed his appeal.
- The IJ and BIA rested denial primarily on an adverse credibility determination based on material inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony and written statements.
- Key inconsistencies involved whether Singh was a Mann party member or worker, whether he was alone during an attack, whether his mother witnessed the attack, and whether he suffered continued harm.
- Singh argued the BIA erred by affirming credibility findings, failed to consider hospital records as corroboration, and ignored PTSD’s impact on his testimony.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed legal issues de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, and concluded the record supported the adverse credibility ruling; Singh failed to exhaust the documentary-evidence claim; the BIA had considered PTSD and found it non-dispositive.
- The court dismissed part of the petition and denied the remainder, including any CAT relief, because the adverse credibility finding undermined all relief claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA erred in affirming IJ’s adverse credibility determination | Singh: inconsistencies have plausible explanations; testimony should remain credible | Gov: inconsistencies were material and the totality supports adverse credibility | Affirmed—substantial evidence supports adverse credibility |
| Whether BIA ignored documentary corroboration (hospital records) | Singh: hospital records corroborate his account and were ignored | Gov: Singh failed to raise this issue before the BIA (exhaustion) | Lack of jurisdiction to consider—claim unexhausted |
| Whether PTSD explains or undermines adverse credibility | Singh: PTSD affected his testimony and explains inconsistencies | Gov: BIA considered PTSD; testimony was coherent and Singh didn’t tie inconsistencies to PTSD | Rejected—BIA properly considered PTSD and it did not undermine credibility |
| Whether denial of CAT relief was erroneous given the record | Singh: seeks CAT protection based on past/future harm | Gov: adverse-credibility finding removes necessary evidentiary support for CAT | Denied—same lack of evidence defeats CAT claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (establishes de novo review for legal questions and substantial-evidence review for factual findings in immigration appeals)
- Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806 (confirms standard of review applied to BIA and IJ decisions)
- Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220 (adverse credibility is factual; PTSD does not automatically undermine testimony absent a showing)
- Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396 (an applicant’s alternative explanations do not necessarily overcome substantial-evidence credibility findings)
- Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448 (exhaustion requirement limits appellate jurisdiction to consider issues not raised before the BIA)
- Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653 (lack of credible evidence for asylum/withholding likewise precludes CAT relief)