Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178

Nirmal Singh filed asylum in 1994 claiming persecution in India for Akali Dal Mann Party support; assertion disputed by an adverse credibility finding.
Kulwant Kaur fled to the U.S. with their son; she lied on asylum form claiming Singh was not in the U.S. and had no asylum history.
Kaur provided a more favorable interview, continuing to hide information about Singh and presenting a false familial affidavit.
Singh and Kaur later attempted to consolidate cases; the asylum officer re-interviewed Kaur with Singh present and found inconsistencies.
The immigration judge (IJ) issued an express adverse credibility finding against both, leading to denial of relief; Kaur later sought adjustment of status but was denied reopenings.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that deliberate deception to immigration authorities supports an adverse credibility finding and that deception by one spouse may be attributed to the other in context.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lies to immigration authorities support adverse credibility	Kaur: deceptive conduct is non-material; not enough for credibility	Deception is probative and undermines credibility	Yes; lies are substantial evidence supporting adverse credibility, except narrow Akinmade-type exceptions
Whether Singh can be held accountable for Kaur's lies	Singh claims silence; no independent false testimony	Spouse deception constitutes common plan; silence equates to assent	Yes; common plan to deceive supports adverse credibility against Singh
Standard of review for credibility determinations in asylum cases	Review requires error in fact or bias; deference to IJ	Substantial evidence standard governs; deference to fact-finding	Adverse credibility upheld under substantial evidence standard

Mendoza-Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2003) (credibility review and deference to IJ)
Balam-Chuc v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (substantial evidence standard for adverse credibility)
Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005) (intentional deception as indicators of dishonesty; impact on credibility)
Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing deliberate fabrications from omissions/inconsistencies)
Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 1999) (exception for truthful lies by genuine refugees escaping persecution)
Marcos v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2005) (discrepancies and credibility in asylum claims)
Osorio v. INS, 99 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1996) (non-material errors not basis for adverse credibility)
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (standard for reopening and credibility considerations)
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2007) (inference from silence and cooperation with counsel)
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (adverse credibility linked to false testimony in asylum)