Opinion ID: 3022427
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: R. 182 with A.R. 191.

Text: In addition to noting inconsistencies between the two applications, the IJ also pointed to a significant inconsistency between Singh’s updated asylum application and his hearing testimony. A.R. 48. In the asylum application, Singh indicated that no one was home when the police came looking for him in 1993. A.R. 182. He testified at the 1 Singh conceded that the Khalistan Commando Force was a terrorist group. See A.R. 96. Notably, if Singh aided a terrorist organization, he would be statutorily ineligible for asylum. See INA § 208(b)(2)(A)(v) [8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(v)]. This might explain the change in his story. 4 hearing, however, that his mother was home at the time. A.R. 97. Finally, in addition to all of these inconsistencies, the IJ criticized Singh for failing to offer any documentary corroboration of his involvement in Akali Dal (Mann). A.R. 49. As the IJ noted, it likely would have been possible—during his 10 years in the United States—for Singh to have obtained some kind of proof of his membership in the organization. The inconsistencies identified by the IJ go “to the heart” of Singh’s allegations of persecution, making them an appropriate basis for the adverse credibility determination. Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002).2 Likewise, the IJ reasonably held against Singh his failure to offer any documentary corroboration of his claim. See Berishaj v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 314, 326 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that an IJ may expect corroboration or a satisfactory explanation for the lack of corroboration); see also INA § 242(b)(4) [8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)] (establishing quite deferential review of a “determination by a trier of fact with respect to the availability of corroborating evidence”). Given these problems (and others), as well as the deferential standard of 2 The Real ID Act of 2005 created a new INA § 208(b)(1)(B) [8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)] that apparently requires us to give even greater deference to an IJ’s credibility determinations, even to determinations relying on inconsistencies and omissions that do not go “to the heart of” an alien’s claims. Whatever the impact of this new provision, however, it does not apply to cases such as this one, in which the asylum application was filed long before the enactment of the Real ID Act. Real ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B, § 101(h)(2), 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005). 5 review that governs, we could not possibly disturb the IJ’s credibility determination. See See Dia, 353 F.3d at 247.3