Jaswinder Singh, a citizen of India and member of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar), also known as the Mann Party, applied for asylum after being attacked twice in Punjab by members of the opposition Indian National Congress Party. The attacks occurred while Singh was engaging in political activities, including hanging posters for a blood donation camp and returning from a religious meeting. Following these incidents, Singh fled to the United States. An Immigration Judge denied his asylum claim, finding Singh not credible based on similarities to twenty redacted declarations from other asylum seekers and concluding that Singh could safely relocate to other parts of India. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision. Singh petitioned for review, arguing that the agency misapplied the legal standard for inter-proceeding similarities and failed to properly assess the feasibility of internal relocation.
The panel, writing for the majority, held that the agency erred in two primary respects. First, regarding the adverse credibility determination, the court found that the agency misapplied Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 658 (BIA 2015). Matter of R-K-K- permits consideration of inter-proceeding similarities but requires an analysis of striking similarities in the language, grammar, syntax, and narrative structure of affidavits to suggest plagiarism. The court reasoned that the Immigration Judge relied exclusively on broad, non-unique factual similarities—such as being attacked with sticks or police refusing to file complaints—without identifying any linguistic or grammatical cues that would indicate Singh's affidavit was a copy. The court noted that relying solely on factual similarities undermines the principle that persecution can occur through widespread patterns of harm. Furthermore, the court highlighted due process concerns because the government submitted redacted declarations that prevented Singh from identifying the declarants or explaining the similarities. Second, regarding internal relocation, the court held that the agency failed to hold the government to its burden of proof. The Immigration Judge relied on speculation that violence against Mann Party members was rare outside Punjab simply because State Department reports did not mention it. The court reasoned that an omission in reports does not prove the absence of harm. Additionally, the Judge focused only on whether officials in Punjab would follow Singh, failing to consider whether local authorities or opposition party members in other regions would target Singh for his continued political activities. The court emphasized that the government cannot assume an applicant will silence their political activity to avoid harm.
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition and remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA must now conduct a renewed credibility determination that strictly adheres to the requirements of Matter of R-K-K-, focusing on linguistic and narrative similarities rather than just factual ones. Additionally, the BIA must perform a sufficiently individualized analysis of internal relocation, specifically evaluating whether Singh can safely relocate outside of Punjab while continuing his political activities, without relying on speculation or assuming he will cease his advocacy. The decision clarifies that non-unique factual similarities alone are insufficient to support an adverse credibility finding and that the government bears a heavy burden to prove safety in internal relocation.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download