Summary
Second Circuit denied petition for review of BIA decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, holding that substantial evidence supported the IJ's adverse credibility determination under the REAL ID Act's totality-of-circumstances standard. The court found the agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between Singh's testimony, written statement, and corroborating evidence (including conflicting accounts of harm by police vs. Congress Party and number of attackers), his evasive demeanor, and lack of reliable corroboration (including "canned" affidavits with identical language). The adverse credibility determination was dispositive of all claims based on the same factual predicate.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the agency's adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Holdings
- The adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Key quotations
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, ... the consistency between the applicant's or witness's written and oral statements ... , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record ... , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, ... or any other relevant factor.” (2)
“We defer ... to an IJ's credibility determination unless ... it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” (3)
“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (3)
“Given the obvious nature of the inconsistency, the IJ was not required to press Singh for further explanation or call the inconsistency to his attention.” (4)
“We grant particular deference to this finding, in recognition of the fact that the IJ's ability to observe the witness's demeanor places her in the best position to evaluate whether apparent problems in the witness's testimony suggest a lack of credibility or, rather, can be attributed to an innocent cause such as difficulty understanding the question.” (5)
“Given the inconsistencies between Singh's testimony, proffered corroborating evidence, and written statement, his evasiveness in answering questions, and the lack of reliable corroborating evidence, the totality of the circumstances supports the adverse credibility determination.” (7)
Factual background
Petitioner Gurnam Singh, a native and citizen of India, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. He claimed persecution by Congress Party members and police. The IJ found him not credible based on inconsistencies between his testimony, written statement, and corroborating evidence, as well as his evasive demeanor.
Procedural history
IJ denied relief; BIA affirmed; petitioner seeks review in Second Circuit.