Case Explained: DHARAM SINGH V. TODD BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-17

The Ninth Circuit denied Dharam Singh’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that affirmed the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court applied the substantial evidence standard to review the BIA’s factual determinations, including adverse credibility findings. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that Singh was not credible because he omitted material facts regarding police misconduct in his initial application and later introduced new allegations of persecution by police at his merits hearing to bolster a weaker claim. Although the court noted that the BIA erred in relying on one specific purported inconsistency regarding Singh’s return to a police station, it ruled that this single error did not “gut” the overall adverse credibility determination, which was supported by other factors including Singh’s implausible explanations for his actions. Consequently, because credible testimony is often dispositive for asylum and withholding of removal claims, the court affirmed the denial of those forms of relief. Regarding CAT relief, the court found that while country condition reports existed regarding arrests of political supporters, they did not compel a conclusion that it was more likely than not Singh would be tortured if returned to India, particularly given the BIA’s finding that his testimony was not credible. The practical consequence is that the petition is denied, and the stay of removal will dissolve upon the issuance of the mandate.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.