Malhi v. Bondi: The Second Circuit’s Clarification on Abandonment and Unchallenged Credibility Findings in Immigration Appeals

Introduction

Case: Malhi v. Bondi, No. 23-6549 (2d Cir. May 9, 2025) – Summary Order
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Parties:

Petitioner: Harjinder Singh Malhi, a native and citizen of India
Respondent: Pamela Bondi, United States Attorney General^*

Procedural Posture: Petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision that affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief.

The principal controversy centered on whether the IJ’s adverse credibility determination—premised on testimonial inconsistencies, demeanor concerns, and weak corroboration—was supported by substantial evidence. The Second Circuit, in a non-precedential summary order, denied the petition. Despite the limited precedential value of summary orders, the panel’s reasoning sharpens two critical doctrinal points:

Abandonment Doctrine: An immigration petitioner who fails to challenge specific IJ findings in their appellate brief is deemed to have abandoned them.
Self-Sufficiency of Unchallenged Credibility Findings: Even a single unchallenged ground—such as a demeanor finding—can sustain an adverse credibility ruling, foreclosing all forms of relief that share the same factual predicate.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit upheld the BIA’s decision, concluding that:

Substantial Evidence: Multiple inconsistencies in Malhi’s oral and written accounts, combined with unchallenged demeanor and corroboration deficiencies, provided substantial evidence for the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.
Abandonment: Malhi addressed only two of the IJ’s inconsistency findings on appeal and ignored the demeanor and corroboration bases. Under Debique v. Garland, such omissions amount to abandonment, leaving those findings intact.
Dispositive Effect: Because asylum, withholding, and CAT claims rested on the same discredited narrative, the adverse credibility finding disposed of all three forms of relief.
Petition Denied: No reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach a contrary credibility conclusion; hence the petition for review was denied.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676 (2d Cir. 2023) – Clarifies that issues not raised in the petitioner’s brief are abandoned. The panel invoked Debique to deem Malhi’s failure to dispute demeanor and corroboration findings as waiver.
Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018) – Restates the substantial-evidence standard for reviewing adverse credibility determinations and confirms that such determinations can dispose of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims simultaneously.
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) – Holds that a petitioner must do more than offer “plausible” explanations for inconsistencies; they must show a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to accept them. Cited to discount Malhi’s proffered explanations.
Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2020) – Upholds IJ discretion to assign reduced weight to letters from interested parties not subject to cross-examination, reinforcing the IJ’s corroboration concerns here.
Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008) – Emphasizes that waived findings can alone support an adverse credibility decision, mirroring the court’s treatment in Malhi.
Singh v. Garland, 6 F.4th 418 (2d Cir. 2021) – Articulates that the importance of the fact contradicted drives the weight of an inconsistency; cited to show Malhi’s discrepancies were not trivial.

Legal Reasoning

Standard of Review: The panel applied the substantial-evidence standard under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). It reviewed the IJ’s opinion directly because the BIA had affirmed without opinion (Ming Xia Chen).
Totality-of-the-Circumstances Credibility Assessment: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), the IJ may rely on demeanor, internal inconsistencies, and lack of corroboration “without regard to whether” they go to the heart of the claim. The panel reiterated that inconsistencies about main persecution events are especially weighty.
Abandonment Applied: Citing Debique, the court ruled that by failing to brief the demeanor and corroboration findings, Malhi abandoned them. Those unchallenged findings independently sustain the IJ’s ruling (Shunfu Li).
Dismissal of Explanations: The petitioner’s unconsciousness and family involvement explanations were insufficient under Majidi because a reasonable fact-finder need not credit them.
Chain Reaction: Given the shared factual predicate across asylum, withholding, and CAT claims, one adverse credibility ruling conclusively forecloses all relief (Hong Fei Gao).

Impact

Although labeled “non-precedential,” the order will likely serve as persuasive authority for:

Immigration Practitioners: Reinforces the peril of selective briefing. Counsel must attack each prong of an IJ’s adverse credibility analysis or risk summary affirmance.
Immigration Judges: Encourages explicit, multi-faceted credibility analyses (demeanor, inconsistencies, corroboration) because unchallenged facets can independently support denial.
Second Circuit Jurisprudence: Adds to a growing body of post-REAL ID Act cases stressing deference to IJ demeanor assessments.
Policy Considerations: May disincentivize piecemeal appeals and streamline appellate dockets, aligning with the judiciary’s interest in efficiency.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adverse Credibility Determination: A finding by the IJ that the applicant’s testimony is not believable. Without credible testimony, most humanitarian claims fail.
Substantial Evidence Standard: The reviewing court must uphold administrative findings unless any reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to reach a contrary conclusion. It is a highly deferential standard.
Abandonment (Appellate Waiver): If a party does not raise an argument in their brief, the court treats it as forfeited. The court then need not, and commonly will not, consider that issue.
Demeanor Evidence: The IJ’s on-the-record observations of how a witness behaves while testifying—e.g., responsiveness, body language, tone. Courts grant substantial deference because written transcripts cannot capture these subtleties.
Convention Against Torture (CAT) Relief: Protection from removal if the applicant proves it is “more likely than not” they will be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, government officials in their home country.

Conclusion

Malhi v. Bondi offers a vivid reminder that in immigration appeals:

Leaving any credibility factor unchallenged is perilous; abandonment alone can doom a petition.
The Second Circuit continues to afford significant deference to IJ demeanor findings, even when the order is non-precedential.
Consistency across oral testimony, written declarations, and corroborating evidence remains paramount. Minor discrepancies may be forgiven, but contradictions regarding core allegations invite adverse findings.

In the broader legal landscape, the decision fortifies procedural rigor in appellate advocacy and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to efficient, evidence-based review of humanitarian claims. While the order is not binding precedent, its analytical clarity will undoubtedly inform future litigants and adjudicators confronting similar issues.

^* Pamela Bondi is referenced as the Attorney General in the caption, though at the time of the order the office was held by a different individual. The naming follows BIA captioning conventions.