2009 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 10-21-2009 

# Nardeep 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 . 08-3126

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_2009

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 2009 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 " Nar de ep S in gh v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 406. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/406NOT 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- 3126

___________ NAR DE E P S I NGH, Pet i t i oner

v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 95 577 007 Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: M arg are t R . R eich en b erg

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

J une 1, 2009 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: O ct ober21, 2009

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM N ar deep Si ngh pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) , w hi ch di s m i s s ed hi s appea l of an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( I J ’ s ) fi nal r emoval or der . W e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on.Si ngh w as or der ed r emoved i n abs ent i a, buthi s s ubs equentm ot i on t o r eopen w as 1 gr ant ed and ve nue w as change d t o N ew J er s ey , beca us e he ha d m oved. 2 I . Si ngh i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndi a. H e t es t i fi ed thathe fi r s tent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1994 ( w i t houta pas s por torvi s a) . H e r eturned t o I ndi a i n m i d- J une 2000 us i ng s om eone e l s e’ s pas s por tbeca us e he ha d l earned thathi s fatherhad bee n arr es t ed on J une 6 , 2 0 0 0 d u e to h is in v o lv e m e n t w ith th e S h o rm a n i A k a li D a l C o m m itt e e p o lit ica l p a rty t hatadvoca t es fort he cr eat i on of K hal i s t an. H i s fatherw as no l ongeri n pr i s on w hen he r etur ned, buthi s fatherw as r earr es t ed i n J anuary2001, and w as t or tur ed dur i ng hi s 4- day d eten ti o n . P o li ce ca m e to th e f am il yh o m e a g ain o n Ju n e 5 , 2 0 0 1 to arres t N ard ee p ’s father , buthe w as nothom e. T he pol i ce be atN ar deep a nd dr agged hi m t o t he pol i ce s t at i on, w her e he w as det ai ned forfourday s . H e w as brut al l ybeat en and hi s arm w as br oken. H e w as hos pi t al i zed f ort hr ee t o fi ve day s aft erhi s r el eas e. T he pol i ce be gan vis i t i ng t he fa m i l yho m e l oo king fo r N ardeep, so he leftfor the U nit ed S t at es. Si ngh appl i ed foras y l um i n C al i forni a, and as y l um w as condi t i onal l ygr ant ed, but i tw as canc el l ed w hen the G overnm entl earned thatSi ngh had bee n arr es t ed tw i ce f or l ar cenyi n N ew Y or k i n 1999. A . R . 412. Si ngh’ s as y l um appl i cat i on had s t at ed thathe re sid e d in In d ia f

ro m O c t. 19 7 8 to Ju n e 2 0 0 1 , an d h a d n o t d isc lo se d a n yp re v io u s tim e in th e U n ited S tate s. Id . T h e a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w a s re f e rre d to th e Im m ig ra tio n C o u rt. 1 S in g h w a s a llo w e d to a m e n d h is a p p lic a tio n . T h e IJ f o u n d th a t S in g h w a s n o t c re d ib le .3

T he I J found thatSi ngh had s ubm i t t ed contr adi ct oryand part i al l yfr audul entpr oofs of i dent i t y . H i s arr es tr ecor ds s how ed the names “Sunn Si ngh” and “ N ar di p Si ngh” and gave i ncorr ectbi r t hdat es . Si ngh s ai d he w as notaw ar e how thes e di s cr epanc i es appea r ed, as he di d notl i e t o t he pol i ce. Si ngh s ubm i t t ed a “ r at i on car d” i s s ued t o hi s fatherdat ed 1999 t hati ncl udes a phot ogr aph of the fa m i l y , i ncl udi ng N ar deep. H e s t at ed thatthe phot ogr aph w as t aken i n 2000, butt he I J di d notcr edi thi s expl anat i on thatthe r eas on t hat a phot o t aken i n 2000 w as aff i xed t o a ca r d i s s ued i n 1999 m us thave be en bec aus e i tw as r ei s s ued. Si ngh al s o s ubm i t t ed an I ndi an dr i ver ’ s l i cens e. A for ens i cs r epor ti ndi cat ed th a t th e lic e n s e w a s p ro d u c e d o n a n in k je t p ri n te r a n d it in c lu d e d a m is s p e lle d w o rd . Si ngh coul d notpr ovi de anyi nform at i on abouthi s l i vi ng s i tuat i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es betw een 1994 a nd 2000; he coul d notr emem berthe names of ci t i es he l i ved i n ornames of p eop l e he li ved w i t h, asi de from a few nicknam es. T he I J al s o faul t ed Si ngh forfai l i ng t o pr ovi de corr obor at i ng evi dence r egar di ng event s i n I ndi a. Si ngh t es t i fi ed thathi s arm w as br oken, butthe medi cal r epor ts ubm i t t ed m ent i ons onl ycut s and brui s es . T he I J al s o not ed thatthe medi cal r epor tr egar di ng Si ngh’ s fatherand the one r egar di ng N ar deep “ ar e l ar gel yi dent i cal s ave f orthe dat es . ” S in g h d id n o t p ro d u c e a n yre c o rd o f h is a rre st. T he I J found thatSi ngh had notes t abl i s hed w i t h cr edi bl e t es t i m onyorevi dence t hat h e h a d f i l e d h i s a s yl u m c l a i m w i t h i n o n e ye a ro f e n t r y t o th e U n i t e d S t a t e s . A l t e r n a t i v e l y, t he I J found thatSi ngh w as nota “r efuge e” w i t hi n t he meani ng of the I m m i gr at i on and4

N at i onal i t yA ct , as he had notpr ovi ded evi dence thathe fe ar ed per s ecut i on on t he bas i s of hi s Si kh r el i gi on, Si ngh acknow l edged thathe had ne verbeen a m emberof a pol i t i cal p a rt y , a n d h e d id n o t e s ta b lis h th a t p o lic e im p u te d h is f a th e r’ s p o litic a l o p in io n to h im . T he I J al s o found no evi dence t hatSi ngh w oul d be per s ecut ed as a mem berof a pa r t i cul ar soci al group , and fou nd no evidence o f a pa t t ern or pract i ce of persecut i on of those as s oci at ed w i t h t he Shor m ani A kal i D al C om m i t t ee. T he I J deni ed al l r el i ef. T he B I A found thatt he adve r s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng w as notcl ear l yerr oneous , and a lso n o ted th a t S in g h f

a iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n re g a rd in g p a st p e rse c u tio n b e c a u se h e d id notbel ong t o a pol i t i cal par t y , and fa i l ed t o s how thathi s father ’ s opi ni ons had bee n i m put ed t o hi m . T he B I A al s o not ed thatSi ngh had notpr es ent ed per s uas i ve evi dence t hat he fe ar ed per s ecut i on on r el i gi ous gr ounds oranyot hergr ounds . T he B I A hel d t hateven i f Si ngh’ s as y l um appl i cat i on had bee n t i m el yfi l ed, he di d notes t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t yfor a s y lu m re lie f

o n th e m e ri ts . P ro c e e d in g p ro s e , S in g h f ile d a tim e ly p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . II. W e r evi ew t he fi nal or derof the B I A , butt o t he ext entthatthe B I A adopt s part s of th e IJ’ s o p in io n , w e re v iew th e IJ’ s o p in io n to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e B IA ’s d e c isio n to d e f e r t o th e IJ w a s a p p ro p ri a te . Z h a n g v . G o n z a le s , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). “W e w i l l uphol d t he [a dver s e cr edi bi l i t y ] fi ndi ngs . . . t o t he ext entthattheyar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e, and w ill re v e rse th o se f

in d in g s o n lyif

th e re is e v id e n c e so c o m p e lli n g th a t n o re a so n a b leT h e p ro v isio n s o f th e R e a l ID A c t o f

2 0 0 5 re g a rd in g re v iew o f a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty 2 fi ndi ngs do notappl yt o cas es s uch as thi s one, w her e the as y l um appl i cat i on w as fi l ed befor e the ena ctm entof the R eal I D A ct . R eal I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, D i v. B , § 1 0 1 , 1 1 9 S tat . 2 3 1 (M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 5 ). 5 fac t fi ndercoul d concl ude as t he [I J ] di d. ” K ay embe v. A s hcr oft , 334 F. 3d 231, 234 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). I n gener al , “mi nori ncons i s t enci es and mi noradmi s s i ons thatr evea l nothi ng abo ut an . . . app l i cant’ s fear forhis safetyare notan ad equ at e basi s for an adv ers e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. ” G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A nydi s cr epanc i es m us ti nvol ve the hea r tof the cl ai m . I d. 2 T h e IJ id e n tifie d se v e ra l f a c to rs s u p p o rtin g h e r a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g : pr obl ems w i t h document s Si ngh pr oduced t o es t abl i s h hi s i dent i t y ; hi s i nabi l i t yt o gi ve i nform at i on aboutw her e he w as l i vi ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es and w i t h w hom betw een 1994 and 2000; and an i ncons i s t encybetw een hi s t es t i m ony( hi s arm w as br oken w hen he w as beat en i n I ndi a) and the medi cal r ecor d he s ubm i t t ed ( no m ent i on of a br oken arm ) . Si ngh ar gues t hatw her e he w as fr om 1994 t o 2000 i s i r r el evantt o hi s as y l um cl ai m ; even assu m ing h e is co rrect, the o ther f ac tors cit ed b ythe IJ inv o lve th e “ h ea rt ” o f S ing h ’s a s y l u m c l a i m. S in g h ’s c laim is b a se d o n h is a lleg a tio n th a t h e w a s d e tain e d a n d b e a ten in In d ia in 2001. H ow ever , t he document s Si ngh pr oduced t o s how thathe r eturned t o I ndi a i n 2000 a n d 2 0 0 1 a re q u e stio n a b le. H is e x p lan a tio n o f h o w a p h o to th a t h e a lleg e s w a s ta k e n in 2 0 0 0 ca m e to b e a ff

ixed to a ra ti o n ca rd issu ed in 1 9 9 9 d o es n o t r ing tru e. T h e d ri v er’sB ec au se w e u p h o ld the IJ’s ad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing , w e n ee d n o t discu ss the IJ’s 3 fi ndi ng t hatSi ngh fai l ed t o s uffi ci ent l ycorr obor at e hi s cl ai m and heral t ernat i ve fi ndi ng t h a tS i n g h f

a i l e d t o s h o w t h a ta n y p e r s e c u t i o n w o u l d b e o n th e b a s i s o f a s t a tu t o r i l ypr ot ect ed gr ound. 6 l i cens e thathe al l eges w as i s s ued i n I ndi a i n 2000 w as pr oduced on a l as er - j etpr i nt erand c o n tain s a m iss p e lled w o rd . A b a n k b o o k a lleg e d lyre latin g to a n a c c o u n t h e o p e n e d in I ndi a i n Sept ember2001 “cont ai ns no i ndi cat i on of w ho s peci fi cal l yopened the ac countor m ade the l i s t ed tr ans act i ons ; ” Si ngh al s o admi t t ed that“any one i n hi s fami l ycan make t r ans act i ons . ” I J ’ s deci s i on at11; A . R . 77. Fur t her , Si ngh’ s t es t i m onythathi s arm w as br oken i n cus t odyi s contr adi ct ed bythe medi cal r epor the pr oduced. W hi l e Si ngh ar gues t hathe w as notgi ven a c hance t o expl ai n t hi s di s cr epanc y , he ce r t ai nl ys houl d have be en aw ar e of the cont ent s of anyexhi bi t s he s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof hi s as y l um cl ai m , and he coul d have of

fer ed an e xpl anat i on w i t houtbei ng pr om pt ed t o do s o. G i ven the unr el i abi l i t yof Si ngh’ s document aryevi dence , w e do notfee l compel l ed t o concl ude that S in g h w a s c re d ib le. L in -Z h e n g v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 55 7 F .3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). 3 B eca us e Si ngh di d notcr edi bl yt es t i fyr egar di ng pas tper s ecut i on orthe l i kel i hood of futur e per s ecut i on, t he I J and B I A pr oper l ydeni ed Si ngh as y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval . W e furt heragr ee thatSi ngh di d notpr oduce a nyevi dence thathe i s l i kel yt o be t o r tu r e d i f

h e r e tu r n s t o I n d i a . We wi l l th u s d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.