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

Heading: Consistency of Testimony

Text: 24 The IJ next found that Petitioner's testimony was internally inconsistent. For example, the IJ noted, he gave different versions of how the names of the police officers came to the attention of the superintendent of police: 25 [Petitioner] initially testified that he gave [the super- intendent] the name of Ajit Singh, who was the station house officer in the village. Later, however, [Petitioner] indicated that it was the superintendent police detective who gave [Petitioner] the names of those who had been responsible. When he was challenged as to the inconsistency of this statement, he then indicated that Mr. Gurdial Singh had given [Petitioner] the names of those who were responsible during the two days that he was in the hospital before he died and that [Petitioner] 26 then gave those names to the superintendent detective. 27 The record reflects this inconsistency on which the IJ relied. 28 The IJ also relied on a physical inconsistency. After testifying that the police had pulled a nail off one of his fingers, 29 [Petitioner] showed the Court a finger on which the nail appeared to be severely deformed. It should be noted that[,] although [Petitioner] did not show the Court the rest of his hand at that time, later the Court did take note that [Petitioner's] thumb on that hand is also severely deformed or split, as if [Petitioner] has two thumbs on that hand. 30 Petitioner has not challenged the accuracy of the IJ's observation in this regard. This discrepancy is significant because of the emphasis that Petitioner had placed, in his testimony, on the actions of the police with respect to one finger only: They had, they had a kind of pliers and they said that they were going to clip my fingers off with those pliers and they, they removed one of my, they removed the skin and one nail in one finger on my right hand. (Emphasis added.) 31 The IJ further noted inconsistency between Petitioner's written application for relief and his oral testimony: 32 [T]he declaration states that [Petitioner ] was arrested by the police at least on the first occasion because he was responsible for a newspaper article having been written about the incident [involving Gurdial Singh's death]. Nevertheless, in his testimony, [Petitioner] indicated very clearly that the reason for his arrest was because he was responsible for the suspension of the station house officer, Ajit Singh. 33 Again, the record reflects the accuracy of the IJ's observation. 34 Taken together, the inconsistencies to which the IJ points are sufficiently material to permit her to question Petitioner's credibility. The inconsistencies directly concern the reason why the police arrested Petitioner and the nature of the torture that he allegedly suffered.