Singh v. Garland
19-2449
| 2d Cir. | Apr 21, 2022Background
- Petitioner Harvinder Singh, a citizen of India, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on alleged political membership in the Akali Dal Mann Party and repeated attacks by rival-party members.
- The Immigration Judge denied relief after finding Singh not credible; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision. Singh petitioned this Court for review.
- The agency relied on discrepancies among Singh’s oral testimony, his written statement, and submitted documents (including a doctor’s letter and three witness letters).
- Key inconsistencies included: Singh’s testimony about two medical visits vs. documentary evidence mentioning one; witness letters stating they observed attacks vs. Singh testifying they did not witness them; and a letter author’s party-membership description that conflicted with Singh’s testimony.
- The IJ also cited lack of reliable corroboration and unpersuasive explanations for omissions; the court applied substantial-evidence review and deferred to the agency’s credibility finding.
- Because all requested relief depended on the same discredited factual predicate, the adverse credibility determination was dispositive and the petition for review was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence | Singh argued his testimony and supporting evidence (medical letter, witness letters, country conditions) warranted credibility | Government argued multiple material inconsistencies and lack of reliable corroboration justify disbelief | Court: Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination; petition denied |
| Whether omission of a second medical visit in the doctor’s letter was improperly relied on | Singh said there were two visits and offered explanations for omission | Government: omission plus inconsistent explanations undermined his account | Court: IJ reasonably relied on the omission and related inconsistencies |
| Whether witness letters actually corroborated the attacks | Singh claimed letters corroborate the attacks; he later said some authors were mistaken about witnessing | Government: letters contradicted Singh’s testimony (authors said they were present) | Court: Agency reasonably found these contradictions weakened Singh’s credibility |
| Whether the IJ failed to consider country-conditions/documentary evidence and whether that would cure credibility problems | Singh argued the IJ ignored or undervalued his country-conditions evidence and corroboration | Government: IJ may discount documentary evidence when core factual assertions are not credible | Court: Deference to agency; documentary evidence did not rehabilitate Singh’s discredited testimony; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (review of BIA decision as modified by IJ)
- Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018) (review standard for adverse credibility and use of inconsistencies)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (defer to IJ credibility findings unless no reasonable fact-finder could reach them)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (applicant must do more than offer plausible explanations for inconsistencies)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate can bear on credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility determination can be dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (deference to agency evaluation of documentary evidence)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption that IJ considered all evidence before him)