2010 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 2-22-2010 

# M anjinde r 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 . 08-4700

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_2010

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 2010 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
" M an jinde r S in gh v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1853. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1853NOT 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. 08- 4700

___________ M ANJ I NDE R 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 es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 079- 083- 9900) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary20, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: February22, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM M anji nd er Si ng h p et i t i on s for r eview of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’ (“ B IA ” ) f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. F o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n .A l t hough Si ngh w as , att he t i m e, l i vi ng i n N ew J er s eyw i t h hi s s i s t er( w ho 1 al l egedl yl i ved w i t h hi m i n I ndi a dur i ng the r el evantt i m e per i od) , he di d notpr oduce he r att he hea r i ng ors ubm i tan af fi davi tfr om her . M or eover , Si ngh di d nots ubm i tan aff i davi tfr om hi s father , w hom t he I J des cr i bed as “a ve r yi m por t antper s on i n t hi s cas e. ” ( D eci s i on of I J at13. ) Fi nal l y , Si ngh di d notpr ovi de anydocument at i on fr om the C o n g ress P artyind icati n g that h e w as, i n fa ct, a m em b er. 2 B e c a u se th e b a c k g ro u n d o f th is c a se is f

a m ili a r to th e p a rties , w e d isc u ss it o n ly br i efl yher e. I n N ovember2000, Si ngh, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndi a, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i t houtval i d entr ydocument s . I n O ct ober2005, the D epart m entof H om el and S e c u rityin iti a ted re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s a g a in st h im . H e c o n c e d e d re m o v a b ili tya n d , in February2006, appl i ed foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . I n s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i on, he ar gued thathe f e a re d re tu rn in g to In d ia b e c a u se o f p e rse c u tio n h e h a d re c e iv e d o n a c c o u n t o f h is m e m b e r s h i p i n I n d i a ’ s C o n g r e s s P a r t y. I n J ul y2006, Si ngh t es t i fi ed bef or e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) . T he I J concl uded t hatSi ngh’ s t es t i m onyl acke d cr edi bi l i t y , i dent i fy i ng s ever al i ncons i s t enci es betw een the t es t i m onyand document s i n t he r ecor d. I n l i ghtof thes e i ncons i s t enci es , the I J r equi r ed corr obor at i on forSi ngh’ s cl ai m s . Si ngh, how ever , fai l ed t o pr ovi de anys uch co rrob o rati o n . A s a re su lt , the IJ re jected h is cl aim o f p ast p erse cu ti o n . A s fo r S ing h ’s 1
c laim s o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n a n d to rtu re , the IJ s tate d th a t ev e n if th e re w a s a n ytru th to Si ngh’ s t es t i m ony , he coul d s afe l yr eturn t o I ndi a bec aus e the C ongr es s Par t yw as curr ent l yi n pow er . A ccor di ngl y , t he I J deni ed Si ngh’ s appl i cat i on.3

In N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8 , the B IA a d o p ted a n d a f f irm e d th e IJ’ s d e c isio n . T h e B IA h e ld t hatt he I J had “c ons i der ed the ‘ t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s ’ i n fi ndi ng [Si ngh] not cr edi bl e. ” ( D eci s i on of B I A at1. ) T he B I A hi ghl i ght ed s om e of the i ncons i s t enci es ci t ed i n t he I J ’ s deci s i on, and not ed thatt he I J had di s cus s ed the var i ous corr obor at i ng d o cu m en tat ion that S ing h h ad “f ail ed to p rov ide w ith o u t ade q u ate e x p lana ti o n . ” (Id . ) T he B I A concl uded thatbeca us e the I J ’ s “adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on w as s uppor t ed bys peci fi c, cogentr eas ons forw hi ch [Si ngh] pr ovi ded no r eas onabl e expl anat i ons , w e do n o t fi n d itto b e c learlyerro n eo u s. ” (Id . ) A d d it ion all y , the B IA h eld th at th e IJ’s “adve r s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng al s o compel s deni al of hi s appl i cat i on underthe [CA T ] , s i nce that ap p li ca ti o n is ba sed o n iden ti ca l fac ts. ” (Id . ) S ing h n o w see k s rev iew o f th e B IA ’s deci s i on. II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er this pe ti ti o n p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). W h ere “the B IA b o th ad o p ts th e f ind ing s o f th e IJ a n d d iscu sses so m e o f th e b ase s fo r th e IJ’s deci s i on, w e have author i t yt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both t he I J and the B I A . ” C hen v. A sh cro ft, 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). S ing h arg u es th at IJ an d B IA d id n o t pro v ide “ sp ec ifi c, co g en t r ea so n s” in su p p o rt of the adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on. T hi s ar gum enti s bas el es s . T he I J ’ s deci s i on clea rl yiden ti fied an d d iscu ssed sev era l i m p o rt an t i n co n sist en cies b etw ee n S ing h ’s test im o n yan d d o cu m en ts i n the re co rd. M o reo v er, i n ad o p ti n g an d af firm ing the IJ’sdecis i on , t he B IA rei t erat ed som e of these i nco nsi st encies .

Si ngh nextcl ai m s t hatt he I J fai l ed t o aff or d hi m an oppor tuni t yt o expl ai n w hyhe di d nots ubm i tcorr obor at i ng document at i on. T hi s cl ai m i s bel i ed bythe r ecor d. A tt he h e a rin g b e f

o re th e IJ, S in g h ’s o w n a tto rn e ya sk e d w h e th e r S in g h “ c o n sid e r[ e d ] try in g to obt ai n aff

i davi t s fr om w i t nes s es ora l ett erfr om the C ongr es s Par t y , forexampl e. ” (A d m in . R e c . a t 1 2 4 .) S in g h re s p o n d e d b yc o n c e d in g , “ N o , I d id n ’t . N o , I d id n ’t g e t it, I w a s n ’t th in k in g o f

it.” (I d .) Fi nal l y , Si ngh cont ends t hatthe B I A fai l ed t o cons i derhi s C A T cl ai m apartfr om h is cl aim s fo r asy lum an d w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. W e d isag ree . In it s d ec isi o n , the B IA s peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed Si ngh’ s C A T cl ai m and r eas oned that , beca us e thatcl ai m r el i ed on t he s ame evi dence as hi s ot hercl ai m s – evi dence thatl acke d cr edi bi l i t y– Si ngh coul d not prevai l on his C A T cl ai m . W e fi nd no err or i n the B IA ’s analy si s. I n l i g h to f

t h e a b o v e , we wi l l d e n yS i n g h ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.

4