Singh v. Sessions
686 F. App'x 28
2d Cir.2017Background
- Petitioner Varlinder Singh, an Indian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on two alleged attacks by Congress Party members and a fear of future persecution.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) excluded documentary evidence Singh submitted after the filing deadline; the documents were admitted only for identification, not substantive proof.
- Singh’s asylum application and oral testimony contained multiple internal inconsistencies about the dates and circumstances of the alleged attacks (e.g., giving different years for the second attack).
- Singh did not contemporaneously object to the IJ’s exclusion of the late evidence, and his BIA challenge was generalized rather than a specific exhaustion of the evidentiary ruling.
- The IJ found Singh not credible based on his inconsistent testimony; the BIA affirmed, concluding the adverse credibility determination was dispositive of all relief.
Issues
| Issue | Singh's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of late-filed evidence | IJ erred in excluding documentary evidence; those documents corroborate his attacks | IJ properly enforced filing deadlines; late evidence was waived and admitted only for identification | Singh failed to exhaust this challenge before the agency; exclusion claim not considered on review |
| Adverse credibility finding | Testimony and submitted documents (if considered) show consistent account and corroboration | Testimony contained material inconsistencies undermining credibility; admitted documents do not rehabilitate testimony | Court upheld adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies; supported denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief |
| Dispositive effect of credibility on all relief | Even if some evidence admitted, credibility issues do not defeat claim | Credibility is dispositive because all claims rest on same factual predicate | Agency’s adverse credibility ruling bars all requested relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2008) (IJ has broad discretion to set/enforce filing deadlines)
- Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (review of IJ decision as supplemented by BIA)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (adverse credibility review under totality of circumstances)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (material inconsistencies can undermine asylum claims)
- Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 2006) (agency factual findings upheld unless compelled otherwise)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (failure to adequately explain inconsistencies supports adverse credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility determination can be dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief)
- Foster v. I.N.S., 376 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2004) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars review)