“Plausibility & Corroboration Re-examined” – Singh v. Bondi and the Second Circuit’s Re-affirmation of Deference to Adverse Credibility Findings in Asylum Cases

1. Introduction

Gurdeep Singh, an Indian national and self-described grassroots member of the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar (SADA), sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after entering the United States. He claimed that rival political actors in Haryana assaulted him in 2012 and later murdered his father and grandfather. Both the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected his application on adverse-credibility grounds. In Singh v. Bondi, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Singh’s petition for review, finding substantial evidence to uphold the credibility determination.

Although the Court issued a non-precedential “Summary Order,” the opinion offers an instructive synthesis of how inconsistencies, implausibility, and lack of corroboration interact—under the REAL ID Act—to defeat protection claims.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit (Judges Wesley, Sullivan, and Lee) held:

Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that Singh’s testimony was not credible.
The identified discrepancies—regarding Singh’s whereabouts after the 2012 attack and whether he escorted his father to a police station—were material and unexplained.
Photographic evidence purporting to show Singh’s father in hospital was inconsistent with allegations of fatal head injuries.
The asserted six-year gap between Singh’s departure and the alleged attacks on relatives rendered the events implausible, especially in light of State-Department country reports.
Because the credibility determination undermined the factual predicates for all three forms of relief (asylum, withholding, CAT), each claim necessarily failed.

The petition for review was therefore DENIED.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006): Clarifies that appellate courts examine both IJ and BIA decisions. Here, the Court did precisely that to aggregate all credibility findings.
Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018): Re-articulates the “substantial evidence” standard and totality-of-circumstances test. The panel relied on Hong Fei Gao for the level of deference owed.
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008): Establishes that courts defer to an IJ’s adverse credibility finding unless no reasonable fact-finder could agree. The phrase “no reasonable fact-finder” is quoted verbatim.
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005): Holds that a petitioner must show not just a plausible explanation but that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to accept it. Used to dismiss Singh’s explanations for inconsistencies.
Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007): Explains that where two permissible views of evidence exist, the IJ’s view cannot be clearly erroneous. Invoked regarding the hospital photograph.
Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) & Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2006): Provide authority for implausibility findings tied to objective evidence like State-Department reports.
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007): Supports the principle that missing corroboration further weakens already dubious testimony.
Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2020): Emphasizes that even a single inconsistency can suffice; multiple inconsistencies “more forcefully” do so.
Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676 (2d Cir. 2023): Applied to deem an argument abandoned when not squarely raised in the brief.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the REAL ID Act credibility framework, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Under that provision, credibility determinations may rest on:

Inherent plausibility;
Internal consistency;
Consistency with country conditions;
Omissions, inaccuracies, or falsehoods, even if not “central” to the claim.

Using these factors, the Court noted three principal grounds for disbelief:

Inconsistencies between written and oral statements (e.g., post-attack hiding vs. traveling for six months; presence at police station).
Implausibility (e.g., photograph incompatible with fatal beating; six-year delay in attacks; absence of police or medical records despite alleged murders).
Lack of corroboration (failure to submit police, medical, or objective political-party documentation; unexplained absence of witnesses).

Because the IJ’s rationale touched multiple REAL ID factors and was tethered to record evidence (photographs, State-Department reports, affidavit inconsistencies), the findings survived substantial-evidence review. Thus, all three forms of protection fell together, since they shared the same factual nucleus.

3.3 Potential Impact

While the decision is a non-precedential summary order, it nonetheless provides practical guidance for:

Practitioners – Emphasizes the importance of aligning affidavits, testimony, and photographic or documentary evidence.
Asylum Applicants – Underscores how seemingly minor omissions (e.g., a sibling omitting a detail) can erode credibility when compounded.
Immigration Judges – Confirms that they may use plausibility and corroboration deficits in tandem to reach adverse findings.
Future Litigation – Reinforces that photographic ambiguity, delays in alleged harm, and silence in country-conditions evidence can be decisive. Claims from Indian political activists—particularly low-level SADA members—will face heightened scrutiny unless supported by rigorous documentation.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Adverse Credibility Determination – A finding by the IJ that the applicant’s testimony is not believable, which can doom all forms of relief if material facts rest solely on that testimony.
Substantial Evidence Standard – An appellate court must uphold agency fact-finding unless a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach the opposite conclusion.
REAL ID Act Credibility Factors – Statutory checklist guiding how inconsistencies, omissions, or implausibilities are weighed.
Asylum vs. Withholding vs. CAT – Asylum requires a “well-founded fear” of persecution; withholding demands a higher “more likely than not” standard; CAT focuses on torture by or with government acquiescence. A single adverse credibility finding can defeat all three when they share facts.
Summary Order – A non-precedential opinion under Local Rule 32.1.1; informative but not binding circuit precedent.

5. Conclusion

Singh v. Bondi illustrates how the Second Circuit continues to apply robust deference to Immigration Judges under the REAL ID Act. By interlacing inconsistencies, plausibility judgments, and corroboration gaps, the Court reaffirmed that even sympathetic political-violence narratives fail without cohesive, documented support. Although the ruling lacks formal precedential weight, it stands as a cautionary tale: credible testimony must be internally consistent, externally plausible, and corroborated, or it will not survive “substantial evidence” review. In the broader context of immigration jurisprudence, the decision underscores a judiciary increasingly attentive to evidentiary rigor, especially in an era where photographic and digital proof is readily obtainable.