Tirath Singh v. Jefferson Sessions
702 F. App'x 508
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Tirath Singh, an Indian national, sought review of the BIA’s denials of his motions to reopen and to reconsider based on ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) by three successive attorneys.
- Central factual disputes: (1) second counsel Olumide Obayemi withdrew Singh’s application for withholding of removal and CAT relief after a poorly understood colloquy with the IJ; (2) first counsel Hardeep Rai allegedly used an incorrect U.S. entry date (1992 vs. Singh’s asserted 1990 entry) and relied on contested information from an I-213 record without correcting it; (3) third counsel Jaspreet Singh failed to raise changes in Singh’s personal circumstances (interfaith marriage) as grounds for reopening or asylum.
- Singh argued his attorneys’ errors prejudiced the outcome and that he tried to correct the record when errors appeared (including objections to the I-213 and the incorrect entry date).
- The BIA denied reopening and reconsideration, relying on the IJ colloquy, apparent admissions, and the I-213, and concluded Singh had not shown prejudice or a viable asylum claim based on changed personal circumstances.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed legal questions de novo and motions to reopen/reconsider for abuse of discretion, concluding the BIA abused its discretion as to multiple IAC claims and remanding in part; it denied relief as to the asylum-viability argument and dismissed duplicative claims as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Obayemi’s withdrawal of withholding/CAT application prejudiced Singh | Withdrawal was made without Singh’s understanding; therefore Singh was prejudiced because he lost a form of relief | Colloquy with IJ shows Singh understood and agreed, so no prejudice | BIA abused discretion: colloquy shows Singh was confused and IJ failed to explain differences between forms; prejudice not negated by record |
| Whether Rai’s handling (wrong entry date, reliance on I-213) prejudiced Singh | Rai failed to correct incorrect 1992 entry date and used contested I-213 material despite Singh’s objections, affecting outcome | BIA relied on Singh’s prior admission and I-213 as reliable; no prejudice shown | BIA abused discretion: relied on equivocal colloquy and I-213 without addressing contested veracity; Singh presented evidence to raise prejudice claim |
| Whether Jaspreet’s IAC can be dismissed based on same supposed admissions as to Rai | Jaspreet’s failures implicated same prejudicial errors; admissions were equivocal or unreliable | BIA treated admissions as dispositive for both attorneys | BIA abused discretion for same reasons as for Rai — cannot dispose of Jaspreet claims on same flawed basis |
| Whether failure to raise changed personal circumstances (interfaith marriage) would make an asylum claim viable | Singh argued changed circumstances could support an untimely asylum claim if properly presented | BIA: changes in personal U.S. circumstances alone do not establish changed country conditions or a viable asylum claim | Denied: Singh failed to point to country-conditions evidence showing a plausible fear of future persecution; BIA did not abuse discretion on this point |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (de novo review of legal IAC/due process claims)
- Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855 (per curiam) (standards for attorney competence in IAC motions to reopen)
- Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879 (prejudice standard: deficiencies could have affected outcome)
- Espinoza v. I.N.S., 45 F.3d 308 (evidence reliability and evaluation in reopening contexts)
- Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034 (changes in personal circumstances insufficient alone to show changed country conditions)
- Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014 (viability requirement for untimely asylum claims based on changed circumstances)
- Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977 (need for country-conditions evidence to show objective fear of future persecution)