Background
Dharam Singh, a native and citizen of India, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial of his application, citing adverse credibility due to omissions in his testimony regarding police mistreatment and threats.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. It found that omissions of new allegations at the merits hearing were probative of credibility. Although the agency erred in relying on one inconsistency, the error did not gut the determination. The court also found country condition reports insufficient to compel a conclusion of torture without credible testimony.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that omissions in asylum applications can undermine credibility and that country condition reports alone may not suffice for Convention Against Torture claims if the petitioner’s testimony is not credible.