2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-15-2007 

# S ingh v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4539

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S in gh v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1620. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1620NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 4539 NI S HAN S I NGH, Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R e sp o n d e n t Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 16- 081- 976) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am K . St r as s er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary9, 2007 B efore: S L O V ITE R and R E N D E L L , C i rcui tJudg es,

and R U FE , * D i s t r i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed: February15, 2007 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

*H onor abl e C ynt hi a M . R ufe, D i s t r i ctJ udge fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. N i s han Si ngh pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the dec i s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “the B oar d”) aff i r m i ng t he deni al of hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um , appl i cat i on for w i t hhol di ng of r emoval undert he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct , and r eques tfor w i t hhol di ng of r emoval underA r t i cl e 3 of the C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. I. S in g h , a 2 6 -y e a r-o ld S ik h , w a s b o rn in th e P u n jab re g io n o f

In d ia. H e a rriv e d in th e U n ited S tate s in 1 9 9 8 a n d su b se q u e n tlya p p lied f o r a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, and pr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. Si ngh ar gues t hathe i s el i gi bl e for a gr antof as y l um bas ed upon hi s w el l - founded f eart hathe w i l l be per s ecut ed i f he r etur ns t o I ndi a bec aus e of hi s m ember s hi p i n t he A kal i D al M ann part y . A ta hea r i ng befor e an Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ), S in g h tes tifie d th a t h e w a s to ld th a t h is f a th e r d ied in 1 9 8 4 a t a Si kh cel ebr at i on aft erm ember s of the I ndi an arm yopened f i r e on the gr oup. Si ngh pr offe r ed a c opyof hi s father ’ s death cert i fi cat e, w hi ch s t at ed thathi s fatherdi ed i n 1984 i n Punj ab . S ing h also test ifi ed that o n N o v em b er 1 , 1 9 9 7 , the p o li ce k idn ap p ed S ing h ’s br ot herbeca us e of hi s br ot her ’ s i nvol vementw i t h t he A kal i D al M ann part y . Si ngh s t at ed t hathe j oi ned the A kal i D al M ann part yon t he dayhi s br ot herw as ki dnapped. Si ngh pr offe r ed hi s par t ym ember s hi p car d and l et t erfr om t he part y ’ s C hi ef Spokes m an and S ec retaryto co rrob o rate h is t esti m o n ythat h e is a p artym em b er. H o w ev er, S in g h ’s p a rty m ember s hi p car d s t at es t hathe j oi ned the part yon N ovember1, 1998.3

S in g h tes tifie d th a t af

ter h e jo in e d th e A k a li D a l M a n n p a rty , the p o lice b e a t h im o n three o cc asio n s. O n the f ir st oc ca sion , D ec em b er 3 1 , 1 9 9 7 , S ing h w as h an g ing p o sters f o r t h e p a rt yw h e n th e p o lic e to o k h im a n d a f ri e n d to th e p o lic e s ta tio n a n d b e a t th e m . S in g h w a s h e ld a t th e p o lice sta tio n f o r tw o d a y s a n d w a s re lea se d w h e n h e p ro m ise d to c e a se w o rk in g f

o r th e p a rty . A f

ter h is re lea se , tw o f

rie n d s g a v e S in g h a rid e h o m e to h is mo t h e r ’ s h o u s e wh e r e S i n g h ’ s wi f e t r e a t e d h i s i n

j u r i e s . S i n g h t e s t i f

i e d t h a th i s t wo f ri e n d s , w if

e , a n d m o th e r a ll h a d th e o p p o rt u n ity to o b s e rv e th a t S in g h h a d b e e n b e a te n . O n th e se c o n d o c c a sio n , Ja n u a ry2 6 , 1 9 9 8 , S in g h w a s a rre ste d w h ile a tten d in g a ra lly or gani zed byt he part y . T he pol i ce he l d Si ngh fors even da y s and bea thi m a numberof t i m es . T he hea d of the vi l l age w as abl e t o obt ai n Si ngh’ s r el eas e and a doct or ’ s as s i s t ant t r eat ed hi s w ounds . O n t he thi r d occa s i on, t he pol i ce s t opped Si ngh on A ugus t15, 1998, as he w as t r ans por t i ng peopl e t o a r al l y . T he pol i ce be atSi ngh and the otherpeopl e i n t he vehi cl e and then t ook hi m t o t he pol i ce s t at i on, w her e theyhel d hi m fort w o day s . Si ngh t es t i fi ed thathe hea r d t he pol i ce t al ki ng aboutki l l i ng hi m i n a “f ake pol i ce e ncount er . ” Si ngh w as r el eas ed af

t erpay i ng a br i be t o t he pol i ce. A ft ert hi s i nci dent , Si ngh s t ay ed w i t h fri end s i n D el hi, w ho gav e him cream for hi s i njur i es. S in g h f irst te stif ied th a t h e lef

t In d ia in O c to b e r 1 9 9 7 , b u t late r sa id th a t h e lef t in O ct ober1998. Si ngh came t o t he U ni t ed St at es as a cr ew m an and de s er t ed the s hi p once he arr i ved her e. A ccor di ng t o t he R epor tof D es er t i ng C r ew m an, Si ngh ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on N ovember29, 1998, and des er t ed on D ece m ber2, 1998. Si ngh t es t i fi ed4

t hathe cont i nued t o w or k fort he part yaft erent er i ng t he U ni t ed St at es , butdi d not pr ovi de anydocument aryevi dence t o s uppor tt hi s as s er t i on. Si ngh not ed thathe obt ai ned a d iv o rc e f

ro m h is In d ian w if

e a f ter h e c a m e to th e U n ited S tate s, b u t h a d tro u b le r emem ber i ng t he dat es of hi s fi r s tm arr i age a nd di vor ce. S in g h tes tifie d th a t h e is a f ra id to re tu rn to In d ia b e c a u se h e b e liev e s th a t h e w ill be arr es t ed and ki l l ed upon hi s r etur n. Si ngh added thathi s m ot hert ol d hi m t hati tw as nots afe t o r etur n t o I ndi a, and thatt he pol i ce ki dnapped hi s cous i n i n 1999. Si ngh m arr i ed an A m er i can c i t i zen a ft erent er i ng t hi s countr y . A tone poi nthe t es t i fi ed thatt hey w e re m a rr ie d in J u ly 2 0 0 3 , b u t h e la te r s a id th a t th e ym a rr ie d in 2 0 0 2 . Si ngh pr es ent ed l i t t l e evi dence t o corr obor at e hi s ver i s on of eve nt s . Si ngh pr offe r ed the di vor ce de cr ee f r om hi s fi r s tm arr i age, w hi ch s t at ed thatt he pol i ce ha d har as s ed Si ngh’ s w i fe be caus e of Si ngh’ s pol i t i cal act i vi t i es . Si ngh al s o pr es ent ed a rt ic le s a n d re p o rt s d e s c ri b in g p e rs e c u tio n o f S ik h s a n d p a rt ym e m b e rs in In d ia . H ow ever , Si ngh di d notpr offe raff i davi t s fr om any one w ho had obs erved the i nj ur i es t hat he s us t ai ned fr om t he bea t i ngs byt he pol i ce. Si ngh t es t i fi ed thathe di d notbel i eve a f f id a v its w e re n e c e s s a ry a n d th a t h is la w y e r h a d n o t a s k e d h im to o b ta in th e m . T h e IJ d e n ied S in g h ’s r e q u e st f o r a sy lu m o n th e g ro u n d th a t S in g h f a iled to co n v ince the IJ o f th e truthf u lnes s an d v era cityo f h is cl aim s. T h e IJ f o u n d that S ing h ’s t es t i m onyand the evi dence he pr offe r ed w er e i ns uffi ci ent“t o pr ovi de a c r edi bl e bas i s for the C o u rtto m ak e a d eterm ination that asy lum sh o u ld b e g ran ted in this case . ” T h e IJ5

n o ted th a t th e re w a s “ n o t o n e sc in til la o f e v id e n c e su b m itt e d b y[ S in g h ’s] w if e , b yh is m other , byt he d octorw ho t reat ed h i m on t w o o ccasi on s on o ne o f t hese al l eged beati ng s, and byt he p artyhead w ho helped h i m al l eged l yon t he thi rd occasi on t o o btai n h i s r el ease fr om pol i ce a ut hor i t i es . ” The I J added thatSi ngh had fa i l ed t o expl ai n s at i s fac t or i l yw hy hi s par t ym ember s hi p car d s eems t o i ndi cat e thathe di d notj oi n t he part yunt i l N ovember 1, 1998. T he I J deni ed Si ngh’ s appl i cat i on forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval beca us e Si ngh fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatt her e i s a cl earpr obabi l i t yt hathi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be t hr eat ened i f he r etur ns t o I ndi a, and deni ed hi s appl i cat i on forr el i ef unde rA r t i cl e 3 of t he Tortur e C onvent i on beca us e Si ngh fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hati ti s m or e l i kel yt han not t hathe w oul d be t or tur ed on hi s r etur n t o I ndi a. Si ngh appea l ed the dec i s i on of the I J and t he B oar d aff

i r m ed w i t houtopi ni on. II. S i ng h argue s that the IJ di d n ot m ake a p roper adverse cr edibi l i t yfi nd i ng against h im a n d th a t, i n th e a b se n c e o f su c h a f in d in g , S in g h ’s c re d ib le te stim o n ye sta b lish e d h is cl ai m forr el i ef. H ow ever , w e nee d notdet erm i ne w hethert he I J m ade a pr oper cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng beca us e, as w e have pr evi ous l yhel d, an I J m ays om et i m es r equi r e an ot herw i s e- cr edi bl e appl i cantt o s uppl ycorr obor at i ng evi dence i n or dert o m eethi s bur den o f p ro o f. A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft , 2 3 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 5 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); see al so C hen v. G onz al es , 434 F. 3d 212, 221 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( deny i ng pet i t i on forr evi ew of I J ’ s deci s i on b e c a u se , ev e n a ss u m in g IJ d id n o t m a k e a v a lid c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n , p e tit io n e r c o u ld6

be requ i red t o sup plycorr ob orat i ng evidence to m eether burden of p roof). H ere, becau se of the w eakne s s of Si ngh’ s pr offe r ed evi dence and hi s t es t i m onys ugges t i ng t hat c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e wa s a v a i l a b l e , t h e I J d i d n o te r ri n r e q u i r i n g S i n g h t o p r o f f e rs o me corr obor at i ng evi dence i n or dert o m eethi s bur den of pr oof. W hen an I J r equi r es corr obor at i ng evi dence of an otherw i s e- cr edi bl e appl i cant , t he I J m us tconduct“a thr ee par ti nqui r y : ( 1) an i dent i fi cat i on of the fa ct s forw hi ch i ti s r eas onabl e t o expec t corr obor at i on; ( 2) an i nqui r yas t o w hethert he appl i canthas pr ovi ded i nform at i on corr obor at i ng r el evantfac t s ; and, i f he ors he has not , ( 3) an ana l y s i s of w hethert he appl i canthas adequa t el yexpl ai ned hi s orherfai l ur e t o do s o. ” A bdul ai , 239 F. 3d at554 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W i t h r egar d t o t he fi r s tpar tof the A bdul ai i nqui r y , t he B oar d has s t at ed that“i ti s ‘ r eas onabl e’ t o expec tan appl i cantt o corr obor at e ‘ fac t s w hi ch ar e ce nt r al t o hi s orhercl ai m and ea s i l ys ubj ectt o ver i fi cat i on. ’ ” A bdul ai , 239 F. 3d at 554 ( quot i ng In r e S-M-J -, 2 1 I. & N . D ec . 7 2 2 (B IA 1 9 9 7 )). W e m ayn o t r ev erse the IJ’s det erm i nat i on r egar di ng t he ava i l abi l i t yof corr obor at i ng evi dence unl es s w e fi nd t hat“a re a so n a b le trie r o f

f a c t is c o m p e lled to c o n c lu d e th a t su c h c o rro b o ra tin g e v id e n c e is u n a v a ila b le .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( D ). H er e, t he I J s peci fi ed the fa ct s forw hi ch he s oughtcorr obor at i on and not ed Si ngh’ s fai l ur e t o corr obor at e thes e fa ct s , des pi t e the y ear s dur i ng w hi ch Si ngh had the oppor tuni t yt o col l ectdocument at i on. T he I J s oughtcorr obor at i on of Si ngh’ s t es t i m ony t hathe w as beat en byt he pol i ce on thr ee oc cas i ons , ei t hert hr ough aff i davi t s orot her7

evidence from t ho se w ho had ob served S i ng h’s i njur i es. T he I J al s o poi nt ed outt hat S in g h f a iled to p ro f

f e r e v id e n c e to c o rro b o ra te h is te stim o n yth a t h e h a d e n g a g e d in act i vi t i es on behal f of the A kal i D al M ann part yi n t he U ni t ed St at es . A tt he hea r i ng, t he I J as ked Si ngh abouthi s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de evi dence corr obor at i ng hi s t es t i m onyt hathe w as beat en on thr ee oc cas i ons byt he pol i ce. W hen as ked w hyhe fa i l ed t o pr ovi de corr obor at i on fr om t he peopl e w ho t r eat ed hi m , br oughthi m hom e orhel ped hi m t o get a w a yf ro m th e p o lic e s ta tio n , S in g h re p lie d th a t h e d id n o t s e e th e n e c e s s ity o f d o in g it. W hen the I J as ked Si ngh w hyhe di d nothave a nydocument at i on fr om t he doct orw ho t r eat ed hi m , Si ngh i ndi cat ed that , i n I ndi a, appr ent i ce doc t or s do noti s s ue anyki nd of document at i on. Si ngh al s o not ed thathi s m ot heri s i l l i t er at e and s o coul d notw r i t e an aff i davi t . H ow ever , w hen pr es s ed as t o w hyhe di d notas k s om eone e l s e t o w r i t e outan aff i davi tforhi s m ot hert o s i gn, Si ngh s t at ed thathe di d nots ee the nec es s i t yof gett i ng a n yth in g f

ro m h is m o th e r. T h e IJ a lso a sk e d S in g h w h e th e r h e su b m itt e d a n yp ro o f o f h is act i vi t i es on behal f of the part yi n t he U ni t ed St at es . Si ngh r epl i ed thathe had not . W hen a sk e d w h yh e f

a iled to su b m it an ye v id e n c e to c o rro b o ra te h is te stim o n ya s to h is p a rty act i vi t i es i n t he U ni t ed St at es , Si ngh s t at ed thathe di d notr emem berw hetherhe had s u b m itte d a n yp ro o f

o r n o t. I n hi s opi ni on deny i ng Si ngh’ s r eques tforr el i ef, the I J engage d i n t he thr ee- s t ep corr obor at i on anal y s i s t hatw e appr oved i n A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft , 239 F. 3d 542, 554 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e IJ id e n tifie d th e f a c ts u p o n w h ich S in g h re lied f o r w h ich th e IJ f

o u n d it8

r eas onabl e t o expec tcorr obor at i on, poi nt ed outt he abs ence of s uch corr obor at i on on t he r ecor d, and not ed the l ack of adequa t e expl anat i ons forSi ngh’ s fai l ur e t o pr offe r corr obor at i ng evi dence . T he I J pr oper l yper form ed the thr ee- s t ep A b d u la i corr obor at i on anal y s i s , found i nadequa t e corr obor at i on of Si ngh’ s cl ai m s , and found thatSi ngh had th e re f o re f a iled to e sta b lish h is e lig ib ili tyf o r a g ra n t o f

a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, o rr e l i e f u n d e rt h e Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tTo r tu r e . Al t h o u g h S i n g h o f f e r e d s o me e x p l a n a t i o n f

o rt h e a b s e n c e o f

me d i c a l d o c u me n t a t i o n f r o m th e d o c t o rwh o t r e a t e d h i m, hi s pr i nci pal expl anat i on fort he l ack of ot hercorr obor at i ng evi dence w as t hathe di d not s e e th e n e c e s s ity o f

p ro v id in g it. W e fi nd t hati tw as notunr eas onabl e fort he I J t o expec tSi ngh t o pr es entevi dence t o corr obor at e hi s t es t i m onyt hathe w as arr es t ed and be at en on thr ee oc cas i ons and that h e w a s a n a c tiv e p a rtym e m b e r a f ter c o m in g to th e U n ited S tate s, n o r a re w e c o m p e lled to fi nd t hats uch evi dence w as unavai l abl e. 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( D ) . A l t hough corr obor at i ng evi dence m aybe unava i l abl e i n s om e ca s es beca us e of the condi t i ons under w h ic h th e p e titio n e r f

le d h is n a tiv e c o u n tr y , se e Mu la n g a v . A sh c ro ft , 349 F. 3d 123, 136- 3 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ), th e re c o rd in th is c a se d o e s n o t su g g e st th a t co n d iti o n s in In d ia pr event ed Si ngh fr om obt ai ni ng corr obor at i on . W e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t th e IJ e rre d in fi ndi ng t hat , gi ven the abs ence of evi dence t o corr obor at e Si ngh’ s t es t i m ony , Si ngh fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den t o pr ove hi s el i gi bi l i t yfora gr antof as y l um and forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval . W e ther efor e fi nd t hatt her e i s no bas i s upon w hi ch t o di s turb t he I J ’ s deci s i on.9 III . F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.