Singh v. Garland
20 F.4th 1049
5th Cir.2021Background
- Petitioner Daljinder Singh, an Indian national and member of the Shiromani Akali Dal Armistar Mann Party, testified he was assaulted twice by rival BJP members and that local police mocked or threatened him when he sought help.
- Singh left India and was apprehended crossing from Mexico into the U.S. on October 24, 2018; he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- At a 2019 hearing the Immigration Judge (IJ) found Singh not credible, citing inconsistencies in his record and noting “an emerging pattern and an eerie similarity” between his account and other Indian applicants’ claims.
- Singh appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing the IJ misapplied the BIA’s inter‑proceeding‑evidence standards (Matter of R‑K‑K‑), was biased, and that the BIA abused its discretion by denying a remand for newly proffered evidence.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ; the Fifth Circuit concluded the IJ’s use of unnamed inter‑proceeding comparisons was questionable but upheld the adverse credibility finding on other substantial evidence and rejected the due‑process and remand claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility based on inter‑proceeding similarities | Singh: IJ misapplied Matter of R‑K‑K‑ by relying on unnamed "eerie similarities" without meaningful notice or opportunity to rebut | Gov't: IJ permissibly considered similarities plus case‑specific inconsistencies to find Singh not credible | Court: IJ’s reliance on unnamed inter‑proceeding evidence was questionable, but adverse credibility was supported by other substantial evidence, so decision stands |
| Due process / IJ bias (facial expressions; high denial rate) | Singh: IJ displayed bias (smirking, eye‑rolling) and a near‑100% asylum denial rate indicating predisposition | Gov't: Facial expressions and past rulings/denial rate do not show extrajudicial bias; no disqualification sought during proceedings | Court: Expressions and denial‑rate statistic do not establish disqualifying bias; due process claim fails |
| Motion to remand for new evidence | Singh: Newly proffered evidence would affect credibility and warrant remand | Gov't: New evidence did not address core inconsistencies supporting adverse credibility | Court: BIA did not abuse discretion—new evidence did not undermine the inconsistencies underpinning the credibility finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (IJ credibility rulings entitled to deference; judge’s courtroom demeanor alone seldom shows bias)
- Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517 (2d Cir. 2007) (caution in relying on inter‑proceeding similarities; notice and opportunity to rebut required)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings and ordinary courtroom remarks generally not a valid basis for bias/partiality challenge)
- Iruegas‑Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806 (5th Cir. 2017) (substantial‑evidence standard: reversal only when contrary evidence compels a different conclusion)
- Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2014) (highly deferential abuse‑of‑discretion review for BIA denial of motions to remand)
- Avelar‑Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2020) (if outcome would not differ without challenged evidence, credibility ruling stands)