Singh v. Sessions
691 F. App'x 679
2d Cir.2017Background
- Rajinderpal Singh, an Indian national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, alleging persecution in August and November 2010.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief based on an adverse credibility determination; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Singh petitioned for review in the Second Circuit.
- The agency relied on multiple inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony and documentary evidence when assessing credibility.
- Key disputed facts included Singh’s date of birth (conflicting years), the nature and severity of injuries from the August 2010 attack (testimony vs. affidavit and medical record), and who visited him in the hospital.
- Singh’s testimony also conflicted with an affidavit from the village head about the November 2010 incident, including whether a police report was filed and whether kidnapping occurred.
- Because the adverse credibility finding undermined the factual predicate for all forms of relief, the Second Circuit denied the petition for review and left the agency determinations intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies in Singh’s date of birth | Singh said mistakes in stating dates were inadvertent and not probative of credibility | Government: changing foundational facts (DOB) undermines identity and credibility | Court: Agency reasonably relied on DOB inconsistencies; adverse credibility sustained |
| Whether inconsistencies about injuries and hospital records defeat credibility of persecution incidents | Singh attempted to explain omissions and differences (e.g., father’s affidavit, illiteracy, confusion about severity) | Government: discrepancies among testimony, affidavit, and medical record are material and undermine claim | Court: Agency reasonably found explanations unconvincing; inconsistencies supported adverse credibility finding |
| Whether conflicting statements about hospital visitors and village head affidavit undercut the claim | Singh offered proffered explanations (e.g., "normal" omissions by village head) | Government: omissions and contradictions concerning reporting and kidnapping are material | Court: Agency properly discounted Singh’s explanations; inconsistencies further supported adverse credibility ruling |
| Effect of adverse credibility on asylum, withholding, and CAT claims | Singh argued errors in credibility assessment and factual findings | Government: relief depends on same factual predicate; adverse credibility disposes of all claims | Court: Because all relief rested on same facts, adverse credibility bars asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (review of both IJ and BIA opinions where appropriate)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act allows credibility findings based on any inconsistency in totality of circumstances)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation to overcome adverse credibility ruling)
- Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2004) (credibility standards and burden to explain inconsistencies)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (material inconsistency about persecution example supports adverse credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility determination dispositive when all relief is based on same factual predicate)