Singh v. Sessions
691 F. App'x 697
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Bikramjit Singh, an Indian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; IJ denied relief and BIA affirmed (petition for review filed in Second Circuit).
- Central claim: Singh suffered politically motivated attacks and threats for association with the Akali Dal Mann Party and was beaten by police in September 2012.
- The agency found multiple inconsistencies among Singh’s testimony, his written asylum application, and supporting evidence (dates/number of attacks, timing of party membership, whether police beat him).
- Two affidavits submitted on Singh’s behalf used nearly identical language; Singh said affiants prepared them independently but acknowledged a shared translator.
- The IJ also relied on Singh’s demeanor and nonresponsive answers on cross-examination to support an adverse credibility finding.
- Because all forms of relief rested on the same factual predicate, the adverse credibility ruling was dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence | Singh argued inconsistencies were minor/inadvertent or explainable and that affidavits’ similarity was due to a common translator | Government argued documented inconsistencies, similar affidavits, and evasive testimony justified adverse credibility | Held: Substantial evidence supports adverse credibility determination; court defers to IJ/BIA |
| Whether the Mann Party letter could be relied on when it was secondhand | Singh said the letter was potentially inaccurate and secondhand | Government relied on the letter’s inconsistency with Singh’s testimony; Singh testified author knew details | Held: Agency reasonably relied on the letter because Singh testified its author was aware of events |
| Whether similar affidavit language required acceptance because of translator use | Singh claimed shared translator explained the similarity | Government cited nearly identical language as undermining affidavits’ independence | Held: Agency permissibly discounted affidavits—Singh testified they were prepared independently and affidavits showed no translator assistance |
| Whether demeanor and nonresponsive answers could support credibility ruling | Singh disputed that demeanor justified adverse credibility | Government relied on evasive/nonresponsive cross-exam answers | Held: Demeanor and nonresponsive answers reasonably supported adverse credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing both IJ and BIA where BIA closely tracked IJ reasoning)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for asylum credibility review; totality of circumstances and deference to IJ findings)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (applicant’s explanations do not compel reversal of adverse credibility where record supports ruling)
- Pavlova v. INS, 441 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2006) (applicant not required to list every instance of persecution)
- Singh v. BIA, 438 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2006) (nearly identical affidavit language can support adverse credibility)
- Lianping Li v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2016) (differences between accounts of same incidents undermine credibility)
- Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2007) (evasive and nonresponsive testimony can support adverse credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (an adverse credibility ruling dispositively forecloses asylum, withholding, and CAT when claims rest on same facts)