Singh v. Sessions
686 F. App'x 69
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Terjinder Singh, an Indian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; IJ denied relief and BIA affirmed (Feb 22, 2016).
- Singh submitted two letters late (day of second merits hearing), which the agency excluded for lack of good cause.
- Agency found Singh not credible based on multiple inconsistencies across his credible fear interview, asylum application, and hearing testimony.
- Key discrepancies: omission of Khalistan objective in credible fear interview though testified he knew party’s goal; conflicting accounts whether Singh or family reported a 2011 attack to police; statements to Border Patrol that he had no fear of returning to India and came to work.
- Corroborating evidence was deemed insufficient and did not reconcile inconsistencies; no party membership letter from India was produced.
Issues
| Issue | Singh's Argument | Sessions' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of late-submitted letters | Agency abused discretion; letters were relevant and should be admitted | Agency properly excluded letters filed after deadline without good cause | Exclusion upheld — agency acted within discretion (no good cause) |
| Adverse credibility based on omission of Khalistan objective | Omission not dispositive; lack of doctrinal detail should not undermine credibility | Omission contradicted Singh’s testimony that he knew Khalistan was a main party goal | Credibility finding upheld — omission was a meaningful inconsistency |
| Inconsistency over who reported 2011 attack | Singh attempted to reconcile statements at hearing | Government relied on contradictions among interview, application, and testimony | Credibility finding upheld — inconsistency undermined account of past harm |
| Statements to Border Patrol denying fear of return | Singh said statements were due to hunger, thirst, language barrier, and confusion | Government argued Singh admitted making statements and explanations were not persuasive | Credibility finding upheld — Border statements and other timing issues diminished credibility |
| Sufficiency of corroboration | Documents and letters should rehabilitate Singh’s claim | Corroboration conflicted with testimony and lacked key proof (e.g., party membership letter) | Corroboration insufficient to overcome adverse credibility finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2008) (agency may exclude late evidence absent good cause)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (totality of circumstances governs credibility; omissions and inconsistencies relevant)
- Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) (review of both BIA and IJ decisions)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (applicant must show a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit testimony)
- Zhou Yun Zhang v. U.S. INS, 386 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2004) (credibility standards for inconsistencies)
- Rizal v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2006) (limitations on weighing doctrinal knowledge)
- Ramsameaschire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004) (caution in assessing border interview reliability)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (weight of corroborating evidence rests with agency)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (agency discretion in evaluating documentary evidence)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT when claims share same factual predicate)