Paramjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). His applications were denied by an Immigration Judge based on an adverse credibility determination, which was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Singh petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, challenging the agency's findings that his testimony regarding a 2017 attack by the Bharatiya Janata Party and a 2014 beating was not credible.
The panel reviewed the adverse credibility determination and the denials of relief under the substantial evidence standard. Under this standard, administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The court found that the agency's determination was supported by substantial evidence. First, the BIA found Singh's testimony regarding a 2017 attack by the BJP internally inconsistent because he had not previously mentioned an encounter with the party. The court noted that inconsistencies in an applicant's testimony may support an adverse credibility determination. Although Singh attempted to explain the discrepancy, the BIA found he failed to persuasively reconcile it. Second, the court noted a discrepancy between Singh's testimony that he was rendered unconscious for three days during a 2014 beating by the Akali Dal Badal people and a medical discharge summary stating he was admitted due to an automobile accident and was unconscious for only fifteen minutes. While the Immigration Judge was inclined to give Singh the benefit of the doubt regarding the details of the 2014 incident due to his claimed unconsciousness, the judge ultimately made an adverse credibility determination after considering the 2017 inconsistency. Because the BIA dismissed the appeal based on this adverse credibility determination, the court did not address the merits of the asylum and withholding of removal claims. Finally, the court held that the denial of CAT relief was supported by substantial evidence because Singh's claim relied on the same facts the BIA found not credible, and he pointed to no other evidence to support a claim of torture.
Singh's petition for review is denied, and the BIA's order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief stands. The motion for a stay of removal is also denied. The decision reinforces that adverse credibility determinations based on inconsistencies with prior statements and medical records will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, effectively barring relief where the applicant cannot reconcile discrepancies in their testimony.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download