Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178

Nirmal Singh filed an asylum application in 1994 alleging persecution in India for political activity; his claim was initially disbelieved and referred to an IJ for removal proceedings.
Kulwant Kaur, Singh's wife, later applied for asylum in the U.S. and lied on her application to avoid exposing Singh’s whereabouts; she claimed she did not know Singh or his location.
Kaur’s asylum interview contained additional lies under oath and conflicting statements; the asylum officer initially believed her and granted relief.
Singh attended the process with his wife, later indicating he would join her asylum case; the government suspected joint deception and re-interviewed Kaur with Singh present.
The IJ issued an adverse credibility finding against both, denying relief; the BIA denied a motion to reopen in Kaur’s case, and Singh’s petition for review was denied on credibility grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lying to immigration authorities supports adverse credibility	Kaur: lies were to avoid denial, but not to prove fear.	Singh/Kaur: intentionally deceptive actions undermine credibility.	Yes; intentional deception constitutes substantial evidence against credibility.
Whether one spouse’s lies can be attributed to the other in credibility determinations	Singh's silence and participation imply joint deception.	Law allows inference of shared plan; silence equates to consent.	Yes; common plan to deceive supports adverse credibility against both.
Standard of review for credibility findings under the REAL ID Act	Deference to IJ’s credibility assessment applies; must be substantial evidence.	AYE: Court should uphold if supported by substantial evidence.	upheld; review for substantial evidence.
Whether the district court should reopen Kaur’s case given her history of misrepresentation	Misrepresentations should not bar all relief.	History of misrepresentation is a serious adverse factor not outweighed by positives.	Denial of reopening affirmed.

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (adverse credibility based on deceitful behavior permissible)
Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2003) (credibility review—substantial evidence standard)
Balam-Chuc v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (adverse credibility review standard continued)
Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2011) (distinguishes deliberate fabrication from omissions/inconsistencies)
Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005) (intentional deception by asylum applicant—indicative of dishonesty)
Osorio v. INS, 99 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1996) (non-material errors not alone dispositive; focus on material credibility signals)
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (controls reopening/credibility considerations for asylum)
Marcos v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2005) (discrepancies and memory limitations analyzed in credibility)
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2007) (inference from silent defendant under cross-examination)