Post‑Hoc Alternative Grounds Do Not Cure Fabrications: Fourth Circuit Affirms Frivolous Asylum Finding and Demands Individualized Proof for Withholding/CAT Remands

Case: Gurwinder Singh v. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General (No. 24‑1778)

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date: November 5, 2025

Opinion: Unpublished, per curiam (Judges Wilkinson, Niemeyer, and King)

Note: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.

Introduction

This commentary examines the Fourth Circuit’s unpublished decision denying Gurwinder Singh’s petition for review of two determinations by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA): (1) the affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) finding that Singh filed a frivolous asylum application under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6), and (2) the denial of Singh’s motion to remand to pursue withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

The case sits at the intersection of asylum fraud jurisprudence and motions practice in removal proceedings. It clarifies two important points:

Materiality for a frivolous-asylum finding is assessed against the actual theory and record of the original application; post‑hoc reliance on alternative bases (e.g., general religious persecution) does not negate the materiality of fabrications that were central to the claim.
To obtain a remand to pursue withholding or CAT, an applicant must proffer individualized, prima facie evidence of likely harm; generalized country conditions, especially where the applicant is not shown to be similarly situated to the targeted subgroup, are insufficient.

The parties were represented by experienced immigration counsel. Although the opinion is unpublished and thus non-precedential, it offers instructive guidance for practitioners litigating issues of asylum fraud, materiality, and the evidentiary threshold for remand to develop protection-only claims in the Fourth Circuit.

Summary of the Opinion

The Fourth Circuit denied Singh’s petition for review in full. The court held:

Frivolous asylum application: Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that Singh knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application in 2000. Singh later admitted (in 2013–2014) that central aspects of his case—his brother’s alleged arrest and disappearance, his own arrest and political activity, and his occupation—were fabricated. Because the application’s gravamen was past persecution based on these invented events, the lies were “material” under the immigration materiality standard (i.e., had a natural tendency to influence the decisionmaker). Singh’s reliance on an out-of-circuit decision (Yousif v. Lynch) failed because, unlike in Yousif, Singh’s original application did not contain an alternative, non-fabricated basis (e.g., contemporaneous evidence of a religion-based fear supported by country conditions as of 2000).
Motion to remand for withholding/CAT: The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying remand. Singh did not make a prima facie showing that he faces a “clear probability” of persecution for withholding or that it is “more likely than not” he would be tortured with government consent or acquiescence for CAT. His submissions centered on generalized conditions affecting “certain separatist Sikhs” in India, without individualized evidence that he is similarly situated or would likely be targeted.

The court also rejected Singh’s argument that the IJ and BIA believed they lacked discretion to withhold a frivolousness finding. The record showed the IJ recognized discretion but would not exercise it favorably given the breadth and seriousness of the dishonesty.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited and Their Influence

8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6): Provides that a noncitizen who has knowingly made a frivolous asylum application, after being informed of the consequences, “shall be permanently ineligible for any benefits under” the INA. This statutory framework undergirds the IJ/BIA finding and the court’s approval of the severe consequences of a frivolousness determination.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.20; Matter of Y‑L‑, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151 (BIA 2007); Ndibu v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2016): These authorities define a “frivolous” asylum application as one in which any material element is deliberately fabricated and outline the procedural safeguards for making such a finding. The court relied on this formulation, emphasizing that Singh’s fabrications went to the core of his claim (past persecution based on purported political events).
Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988): Establishes the general immigration “materiality” standard—whether a misrepresentation has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision. The Fourth Circuit applied this test to conclude that excising Singh’s fabrications left no viable contemporaneous basis for asylum in 2000, rendering the lies material.
Yousif v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2015): The Sixth Circuit remanded where fabricated torture claims coexisted with an independent, well-supported ground for asylum (persecution of Chaldean Christians in Iraq). The Fourth Circuit distinguished Yousif: Singh’s application did not include an alternate, contemporaneous, non-fabricated basis (e.g., religion-based risk), and he offered no evidence that the country conditions he invoked later existed (and were presented) at the time of his 2000 filing.
Standard for remand/motions practice: Kouyate v. Garland, 122 F.4th 132 (4th Cir. 2024) (BIA’s denial of remand reviewed deferentially and upheld unless “manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion”), and McDougall v. Bondi, 150 F.4th 637 (4th Cir. 2025) (abuse occurs where the BIA fails to give a reasoned explanation or distorts key aspects of the claim). These frame the court’s deferential review in upholding the BIA’s denial of remand.
Withholding of removal standard: Salgado‑Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2018) (requiring a “clear probability” that life or freedom would be threatened on account of a protected ground), citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
CAT standard: Funez‑Ortiz v. McHenry, 127 F.4th 498 (4th Cir. 2025) (requiring a showing that it is “more likely than not” the applicant would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official), citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
Individualized risk requirement: Herrera‑Martinez v. Garland, 22 F.4th 173, 187 (4th Cir. 2022) (generalized reports of violence are insufficient to show the government would torture the particular petitioner). This authority supports the BIA’s view that Singh’s generalized evidence about certain “separatist Sikhs” did not satisfy his prima facie burden.

Legal Reasoning

1) Frivolous Asylum Finding and Materiality

The court centered its analysis on materiality: would Singh’s fabrications have had a “natural tendency to influence” the adjudicator? Applying Kungys, the panel concluded yes. Singh’s application emphasized past persecution narratives—his brother’s arrest/disappearance and Singh’s own arrest and political activity—all of which he later admitted were fabricated. When those linchpin assertions are removed, the application (as filed in 2000) did not put forward a separate, viable fear-of-persecution theory supported by then-existing country conditions (such as a religion-only claim grounded in evidence about Sikhs).

Singh invoked the Sixth Circuit’s Yousif decision to argue that, despite some fabrications, he was otherwise eligible for asylum based on his Sikh religion. But Yousif is inapposite. There, the independent ground—persecution of Chaldean Christians—was both well supported by contemporaneous country conditions and central to the application. Here, the Fourth Circuit underscored that Singh’s filing lacked such an alternative basis. Put differently, materiality is assessed against the record and theory actually presented to the asylum adjudicator at the time, not against a hypothetical, post‑hoc theory layered onto generalized country reports years later.

The court noted further that Singh’s 2014 concession—that he had procured immigration benefits by willfully misrepresenting material facts—aligned with the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that the application was both knowingly false and material. Given this record, the panel discerned no error in the agency’s conclusion that the application was frivolous under § 1158(d)(6).

Discretion to Enter a Frivolousness Finding

Singh argued the IJ and BIA erroneously believed they lacked discretion to withhold a frivolousness finding. The panel rejected that contention as contrary to the record: the IJ recognized discretion but determined that, in light of the nature and extent of the dishonesty, favorable discretion was unwarranted. While the court did not resolve the legal question of the scope of such discretion in the abstract, it made clear that no misapprehension of authority tainted the decision here.

2) Denial of Remand to Seek Withholding and CAT

Motions to remand are reviewed deferentially and must be supported by a prima facie case for the relief sought. For withholding, the applicant must show a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened on account of a protected ground. For CAT, he must show it is more likely than not he would be tortured with government consent or acquiescence.

Singh’s remand request failed because the evidence he submitted did not speak to his individual risk. Rather, it addressed generalized country conditions affecting “certain separatist Sikhs” or other populations (e.g., materials about agricultural policies later repealed, or about violence primarily impacting Muslims, or about specific overseas activist groups). The BIA concluded—and the Fourth Circuit agreed—that this did not make out a prima facie showing that Singh himself, as a practicing Sikh who attends a U.S. place of worship supportive of pro‑Khalistan views, faces a likely threat of persecution or torture upon return. The court’s reliance on Herrera‑Martinez reiterates a familiar principle: generalized reports, without a showing that the applicant is similarly situated to those targeted and likely to be identified and harmed, fall short.

The panel also found no McDougall-type defect: the BIA offered a reasoned explanation and did not distort the claim. Accordingly, under Kouyate, there was no abuse of discretion.

Impact and Practical Implications

A. Materiality and Frivolous Asylum Findings

Record‑based materiality: The decision underscores that materiality is measured against the application as filed. Applicants cannot sanitize core fabrications by later pointing to generalized conditions that might have supported a different, unasserted theory.
Severe downstream consequences: A frivolousness finding imposes a permanent bar to “any benefits under” the INA. Although withholding and CAT are protection mechanisms typically understood to remain theoretically available notwithstanding the § 1158(d)(6) bar, this case shows that obtaining a remand to pursue them requires a well‑documented, individualized prima facie showing.
Procedural posture matters: Fraud detected years after an asylum grant—often in the naturalization context—can unravel subsequent benefits (as here, following Singh’s 2013 interview and 2014 concession). Practitioners should counsel clients on the gravity of asylum misrepresentations and the likelihood of cross‑program fraud referral.

B. Withholding/CAT Remands: Individualized Proof Required

General reports are insufficient: Country reports and news articles about conditions affecting broad groups (e.g., “separatist Sikhs”) do not, without more, establish that a specific applicant faces a clear probability of persecution or a >50% risk of torture with government acquiescence.
Show “similarly situated” status: Applicants asserting risk due to diaspora activism must connect the dots: organizational affiliation, public profile, identifiable activities, government awareness, and patterns of targeting that match the applicant’s profile.
Tailor evidence to the claim: Materials about unrelated policies (e.g., repealed farm laws) or harms to different groups (e.g., Muslims) are readily discounted. Evidence should be recent, specific, and directly tied to the applicant’s circumstances.

C. For Sikh/Pro‑Khalistan Claims

The opinion signals that claims tied to pro‑Khalistan affiliation or sympathies will require individualized substantiation—membership, leadership roles, public advocacy, documented government interest, and similar indicia. Mere attendance at a place of worship with political views, without evidence of government targeting of people in the applicant’s precise posture, is unlikely to meet prima facie thresholds for remand.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Frivolous asylum application (§ 1158(d)(6)): An asylum claim is “frivolous” when the applicant deliberately makes up a material element of the claim and has been warned that doing so carries a permanent bar to immigration benefits. The agency must make a specific frivolousness finding, often after giving the applicant a chance to explain discrepancies.
Materiality (immigration context): A misrepresentation is “material” if it naturally tends to influence a decision, even if the decisionmaker could have denied the claim for other reasons. The focus is on capability to affect the outcome at the time of adjudication.
Asylum vs. Withholding vs. CAT:
- Asylum is discretionary and requires a “well‑founded fear” (a comparatively lower standard) but can be barred by a frivolousness finding.
- Withholding of removal is mandatory if an applicant shows a “clear probability” (higher standard) of persecution on a protected ground. It is protection from removal to a particular country, not a broad immigration “benefit.”
- CAT protection requires showing it is “more likely than not” the applicant would be tortured with the government’s consent or acquiescence if removed. CAT is not dependent on a protected ground and, like withholding, is a protection rather than a typical INA “benefit.”
Motion to remand (BIA): A procedural device used while a case is on appeal to the BIA to send the case back to the IJ to consider new claims or evidence. The standard resembles motions to reopen: the movant must present new, material evidence and make a prima facie showing of eligibility for the relief sought.
Consent or acquiescence (CAT): Requires evidence that public officials would be aware of, or willfully blind to, the likely torture and would not take steps to prevent it.
Generalized vs. individualized evidence: Country conditions reports are useful context but rarely sufficient by themselves. Applicants must tie those conditions to their specific profile, activities, and risk of identification by persecutors or torturers.

Key Takeaways

Deliberate fabrications that form the core of an asylum theory are “material” even if the applicant could imagine an alternative, unasserted theory after the fact.
Unpublished but instructive: the Fourth Circuit endorses a record‑focused materiality analysis and rejects attempts to retrofit an asylum claim with generic country‑conditions evidence years later.
For remands to pursue withholding/CAT, the BIA may deny where the applicant offers only generalized reports and lacks individualized proof of likely harm or torture.
The record showed the IJ understood and declined to exercise favorable discretion regarding a frivolousness finding, undercutting arguments that the agency believed itself bound to make such a finding.
Practitioners should build protection‑only claims with specific, corroborated evidence of personal risk and government interest, particularly in politically sensitive contexts like pro‑Khalistan activism.

Conclusion

In Singh v. Bondi, the Fourth Circuit reinforces two bedrock principles in removal adjudication. First, materiality in the asylum‑fraud context is evaluated against the claim actually presented; core fabrications render an application frivolous notwithstanding speculative, alternative bases raised much later. Second, remand to pursue withholding or CAT demands a concrete, individualized prima facie showing; generalized country conditions will not suffice, particularly where the applicant is not shown to be similarly situated to the targeted cohort.

Although unpublished, the decision offers practical guidance: counsel should avoid relying on generalized reports to establish risk, should carefully anchor any protection claim to the applicant’s specific profile and documented activities, and should recognize the enduring consequences of frivolousness findings detected even years after an initial asylum grant. The ruling thus contributes to a consistent, disciplined approach to asylum fraud and motions practice within the Fourth Circuit’s immigration jurisprudence.