Singh v. Sessions
712 F. App'x 819
| 10th Cir. | 2018Background
- Petitioner Gagandeep Singh, an Indian national who entered the U.S. unlawfully, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after alleged assaults and threats in India (2015).
- He filed three I-589 applications (Feb 2016, May 2016, Sept 2016) that progressively added details and new claims (e.g., involvement of BJP, a Hindu fiancée, forcible hair cutting, family beatings).
- Documentary inconsistencies arose: two different translations of a newspaper article with material changes, and a village council letter describing family beatings not mentioned earlier.
- Singh’s in-court testimony introduced further changes (identifying fiancée, inconsistent answers about photographs and who reported attacks to police) and blamed prior counsel for omissions.
- The IJ found Singh not credible due to inconsistencies, omissions, and apparent embellishment; the BIA affirmed, applying the deferential "clear error"/substantial evidence standard. The Tenth Circuit denied review, holding the adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Singh's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA/IJ erred in adverse credibility finding | Omissions/inconsistencies caused by prior counsel, language/cultural issues; medical records corroborate attacks | Multiple independent inconsistencies, omissions, and embellishments undermine credibility; counsel/language explanations insufficient | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports adverse credibility finding |
| Whether inconsistencies must be material to deny relief | Inconsistencies must be material to affect asylum/withholding | Credibility may be assessed "without regard" to whether inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim (statutory text) | Rejected Singh’s argument; court applied statute allowing all inconsistencies to be considered |
| Whether IJ/BIA improperly discounted corroborating evidence (medical records) | Medical records and other evidence corroborate injuries and support credibility | Court will not reweigh evidence; corroboration does not compel reversal when overall record supports disbelief | Rejected; corroboration insufficient to overturn adverse credibility under deferential review |
| Whether BIA failed to consider explanations for discrepancies (counsel/language) | BIA ignored or gave insufficient weight to explanations | BIA reasonably rejected explanations where record showed independent problems beyond counsel errors or language barriers | Affirmed: BIA reasonably evaluated explanations and need not adopt petitioner’s view |
Key Cases Cited
- Kabba v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir.) (BIA must apply deferential "clear error" review to IJ credibility findings)
- Diallo v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2006) (review limits to issues addressed by BIA)
- Razkane v. Holder, 562 F.3d 1283 (10th Cir. 2009) (may consult IJ decision to give substance to BIA reasoning)
- Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2006) (credibility determinations are factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Elzour v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence standard described)
- Wiransane v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 889 (10th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence standard is highly deferential)
- Sviridov v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 722 (10th Cir. 2004) (IJ must give specific, cogent reasons to disbelieve testimony)
- Yuk v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2004) (court will not reweigh evidence; review is limited to whether substantial evidence supports agency decision)