Taranjit Singh v. Jefferson Sessions
699 F. App'x 710
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Taranjit Singh, an Indian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- Singh filed his asylum application late; he argued changed or extraordinary circumstances excused the untimeliness.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief after making an adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies about Singh’s political party membership and his failure to address those inconsistencies at a continued hearing.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Singh’s appeal, adopting the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and rejecting the excuse-for-timeliness arguments.
- Singh petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit. The court reviewed factual findings for substantial evidence under REAL ID Act standards and considered due process and timeliness contentions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of asylum application | Singh: changed/extraordinary circumstances excuse late filing | Government: no compelling changed/extraordinary circumstances shown | BIA decision upheld; record does not compel excuse for untimely filing |
| Due process challenge | Singh: agency’s analysis violated his due process rights | Government: no prejudicial error in proceedings | Denied; Singh did not show error sufficient to prevail on due process claim |
| Credibility of testimony | Singh: explanations resolve inconsistencies about party membership | Government: inconsistencies and failure to explain at continued hearing support adverse inference | Adverse credibility finding upheld as supported by substantial evidence |
| Withholding/CAT relief | Singh: entitled based on testimony of risk if returned | Government: relief not warranted because testimony not credible and no other compelling evidence | Withholding denied (no credible testimony); CAT denied (not more likely than not to be tortured with government acquiescence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (REAL ID Act standards for adverse credibility review)
- Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards for excusing untimely asylum applications)
- Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2000) (due process challenge requires showing of prejudice/error)
- Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (withholding and CAT relief require credible testimony or other evidence showing likelihood of harm)
- Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to grounds relied upon by the BIA)