Singh v. Garland
17-2368
| 2d Cir. | Jul 28, 2021Background
- Petitioner Amardeep Singh, an Indian national and member of Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar (SADA), sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on political persecution after two violent attacks in India.
- Singh testified and submitted corroborating affidavits, letters (including from SADA president Simranjit Singh Mann and attorney N.S. Noor), and country-condition materials; he conceded removability.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief on adverse-credibility grounds, citing four perceived inconsistencies: (1) Singh’s asylum statement omitted post-attack conversations with Mann; (2) Mann’s supporting letter omitted mention of those conversations; (3) Attorney Noor’s letter used the pronoun “I” suggesting the attorney, not Singh, was the victim of the second attack; and (4) a Municipal Councilor’s affidavit said he accompanied Singh to the police station, contrary to Singh’s testimony.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ, finding no clear error and concluding the inconsistencies, viewed together, undermined Singh’s credibility.
- The Second Circuit reviewed whether the IJ/BIA provided specific, cogent reasons supported by substantial evidence and concluded three of the four ‘‘inconsistencies’’ were not genuine or probative and the remaining inconsistency was trivial.
- The court vacated the BIA’s decision and remanded, holding the adverse-credibility finding lacked the substantial-evidence support required and could not stand.
Issues
| Issue | Singh's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IJ/BIA’s adverse-credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence | Agency relied on minor/trivial inconsistencies; overall finding unsupported | IJ/BIA reasonably weighed inconsistencies to find fabrication | Vacated and remanded; adverse-credibility finding not supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether omission from Singh’s asylum statement of post-attack conversations with Mann is a damaging inconsistency | Omission was supplementary and irrelevant to the asylum statement’s purpose | Omission undermines credibility because it concerns reporting to party leader | Court: omission was not a true inconsistency and bore no legitimate nexus to credibility |
| Whether Mann’s failure to mention his conversations with Singh in his letter undermines Singh | Third-party omission is immaterial; Singh can’t explain another’s draft choices | Mann’s omission casts doubt and Singh’s explanation was inadequate | Court: Mann’s omission irrelevant to credibility; Singh’s guess about why Mann omitted it is not probative |
| Whether Attorney Noor’s use of “I” shows contradiction (implying lawyer, not Singh, was victim) | The ‘‘I’’ was a typographical/contextual mistake; letter plainly described Singh’s complaints | The pronoun suggests inconsistency that undermines Singh’s account | Court: obvious drafting error; not a genuine inconsistency and gave no support for disbelief |
Key Cases Cited
- Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018) (articulates standard for reviewing IJ adverse-credibility findings: reasons must be specific, cogent, supported by substantial evidence, and bear a legitimate nexus to credibility)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (discusses difference between omissions and inconsistencies; omissions are less probative)
- Jhok Bahadur Gurung v. Barr, 929 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2019) (reiterates limits on deference to adverse-credibility findings lacking substantial-evidence support)
- Zhou Yun Zhang v. United States INS, 386 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2004) (applicant must do more than give a plausible explanation for inconsistencies to secure relief)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (credit given to IJ credibility findings but subject to review for substantial-evidence support)