Opinion ID: 765209
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plausibility of Petitioner's Testimony

Text: 35 The IJ found Petitioner's testimony to be implausible in four major respects. First, she found it implausible that Petitioner would have been arrested for fulfilling his duties as sarpanche. Her view is supported by the record. In reply to the IJ's request for an advisory opinion on Petitioner's asylum application, the Department of State reported: While it is not impossible that the police would arrest the head of a village panchay at, such treatment would be unusual. The authorities generally accord such officials a measure of immunity. Let- ter from United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, to Office of the Immigration Judge, p. 1 (Mar. 1, 1996). The State Department further reported that, because arrests were occurring with decreasing frequency, it would be highly unusual  for Petitioner's second arrest to have taken place as he described it. Id. at 2. 36 Second, the IJ found it unlikely that the police would suspect Petitioner of assisting terrorists, when he had absolutely no political affiliations himself and his wife did not have a Sikh name. The record contains those underlying facts. 37 Third, the IJ found it implausible that the superintendent, who apparently had enough power to suspend [police officer] Ajit Singh could not then protect the person who pro- vided the information regarding that suspension or that he would refuse to see [Petitioner] with regard to following up on events related to that suspension. 38 Fourth, the IJ doubted that Petitioner in fact is Hari Singh: 39 [Petitioner] use[d] one name and then suddenly, part way through his case, switche[d] to another name, a name which happens to appear in newspaper articles with regard to the incidents of which he testifies ... 40 ... 41 . . . . . . . It bothers the Court as indicated previously that [Petitioner] used another name through the bond procedures and that [he] did not initially claim to be Hari Singh . . . 42 . . . . [Petitioner's] use of another name throughout the initial portions of these proceedings leaves the Court wondering whether [he] may have simply adopted a story which he knew that he could corroborate through a newspaper article. 43 The change of name to which the IJ alluded is borne out by the record. For example, on May 12, 1995, Petitioner signed his name on the INS Order to Show Cause as Satnam Singh. He requested a prompt hearing as Satnam Singh and again signed his name in that manner. Only on later documents did he begin to sign his name as Hari Singh. The record also shows that the forensic laboratory of the INS was unable to determine whether documents from India in the name of Hari Singh, which Petitioner presented at the hearing, are genuine. 44 The record supports an inference that Petitioner knew that his identity would be an issue at the hearing. That is so, most obviously, because he signed his name using two different first names on various INS documents that would be part of the administrative record in the case. Additionally, the identification documents that Petitioner introduced had been subjected to analysis by the forensic laboratory of the INS, whose report (albeit an inconclusive one) was introduced at the hearing. 45 In the circumstances, the IJ reasonably resolved her doubt against Petitioner, who bore the burden of proof. 46