Singh v. Sessions, 703 F. App'x 44

Malek Singh, an Indian national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, claiming political persecution based on involvement with the Indian National Lok Dal (Lok Dal).
An Immigration Judge denied relief on credibility grounds; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on January 19, 2016.
Singh’s accounts about his membership in Lok Dal, participation in protests, and warnings he received changed across his application, credible fear interview, and testimony.
Identical errors appeared in his asylum application and two allegedly independent affidavits from India, suggesting the affidavits were ‘canned.’
Singh raised additional complaints about the IJ’s record development and reliance on the credible fear interview for the first time on appeal to the court, which the court treated as unexhausted.
The Second Circuit reviewed both the IJ and BIA decisions and concluded substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility finding; the petition for review was denied.

Issue	Singh's Argument	Sessions' Argument	Held
Whether the IJ/BIA erred in making an adverse credibility finding	Singh argued inconsistencies were explainable (memory, fear during interview) and did not compel an adverse credibility ruling	Government argued multiple inconsistencies, contradictory explanations, and identical errors in documents supported disbelief	Court held the adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence and reasonable inferences were drawn
Whether the IJ improperly relied on Singh’s credible fear interview	Singh argued the interview should not be given excessive weight	Government argued the interview was part of the record and relevant to credibility	Court declined to consider Singh’s challenge because it was not exhausted before the agency
Whether identical errors in asylum application and affidavits undermine authenticity	Singh contended affidavits were independent and explanations sufficed	Government argued striking similarities indicate ‘canned’ statements and undercut credibility	Court held the unexplained identical error bolstered the adverse credibility finding
Whether the credibility finding was dispositive as to all forms of relief	Singh argued even if some inconsistencies existed, other evidence supported relief	Government argued adverse credibility infected allegations of past harm and police inaction, defeating all claims	Court held credibility ruling was dispositive and justified denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief

Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA decisions)
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (deference to IJ credibility findings unless no reasonable factfinder could make them)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (applicant must do more than offer a plausible explanation for inconsistencies)
Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.) (demeanor findings supported by specific inconsistent testimony strengthen review)
Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517 (2d Cir.) (striking similarities between affidavits suggest ‘canned’ statements)
Xian Tuan Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir.) (material inconsistency can support adverse credibility and deny asylum)
Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir.) (single false document or testimony can infect other uncorroborated evidence)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (false statements may undermine the whole claim)
Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75 (2d Cir.) (issues not raised before the agency are exhausted and cannot be reviewed on appeal)