Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Singh v. Garland
"Amardeep Singh, a native and citizen of India seeking relief from political persecution in his home country, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which, on adverse credibility grounds, denied Singh asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The IJ relied on four instances of what the IJ perceived as “inconsistencies” to support her finding that Singh was not credible. The BIA affirmed, finding no clear error in the IJ’s decision. See In re Amardeep Singh, No. A 208 179 532 (B.I.A. July 10, 2017), aff’g No. A 208 179 532 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 29, 2016). We conclude that the IJ and BIA erred in treating three of the four instances of perceived inconsistencies as casting doubt on Singh’s credibility. They did not involve inconsistency, at least not of the sort that can reasonably support doubt about the speaker’s credibility. Although the fourth instance, unlike the first three, did indeed involve inconsistency, the inconsistency related to a trivial detail. This trivial inconsistency by itself, without more, could not reasonably justify finding Singh not credible. The IJ’s ruling was thus not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore grant the petition, vacate the decision of the BIA, and remand for further proceedings."
[Hats off to Amy Nussbaum Gell!]