Reaffirming the Rigorous Application of Adverse Credibility Standards under 8 U.S.C. §1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)

Introduction

Singh v. Bondi, 23-6358 (2d Cir. May 16, 2025) presents the petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 and related provisions. Petitioner Malkreet Singh, an Indian national, alleged two politically motivated attacks by members of India’s Congress Party in 2013. The IJ found Singh’s testimony evasive, internally inconsistent, and inadequately corroborated. The BIA affirmed, and the Second Circuit denied review. The case underscores the application of the “totality of the circumstances” framework for credibility determinations under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) and the strict deference afforded to fact-finders under the substantial evidence standard.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit, in a summary order, denied Singh’s petition for review. The court held:

The BIA’s decision is the operative reviewable opinion, yet both IJ and BIA decisions were reviewed for completeness (Bhagtana v. Garland, 93 F.4th 592, 593).
An adverse credibility finding must be supported by substantial evidence under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) and the factors enumerated in § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Specific inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony—dates of attacks, mode of transport to medical care, reporting of threats, and existence of a brother—undercut his credibility.
Singh’s corroborating affidavits were inconsistent with his own testimony and came from interested parties not subject to cross-examination.
New evidence submitted on appeal (birth and death certificates) was properly excluded absent a showing of materiality, unavailability, and likely impact on the result (Li Yong Cao v. DOJ, 421 F.3d 149, 156–57).
The adverse credibility determination was dispositive of all forms of relief because they shared the same factual predicate (Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76).

Accordingly, the petition was denied, all pending motions were denied, and any stays were vacated.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Bhagtana v. Garland (93 F.4th 592, 593): Confirms that when the BIA issues an opinion, it becomes the basis for judicial review.
Wangchuck v. DHS (448 F.3d 524, 528): Permits review of both IJ and BIA opinions for completeness.
Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions (891 F.3d 67, 76–79): Sets forth the substantial evidence standard for credibility and confirms that where the factual predicate is identical, adverse credibility forecloses asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey (534 F.3d 162, 167): Emphasizes deference to IJ credibility findings unless no reasonable fact-finder could reach them.
Jin Chen v. DOJ (426 F.3d 104, 113) and Li Hua Lin v. DOJ (453 F.3d 99, 109): Support deference to demeanor and specific examples of inconsistent testimony.
Biao Yang v. Gonzales (496 F.3d 268, 273): Permits consideration of failure to corroborate as a factor in credibility determinations.
Majidi v. Gonzales (430 F.3d 77, 80): Requires more than plausible explanations for inconsistencies; petitioner must show a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit testimony.
Li Yong Cao v. DOJ (421 F.3d 149, 156–57): Outlines the standards for remand based on new evidence.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in three stages:

Deference to Credibility Findings: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) and the “substantial evidence” standard of § 1252(b)(4)(B), the IJ’s credibility findings are upheld unless no reasonable adjudicator could make them (Xiu Xia Lin; Hong Fei Gao).
Identification of Inconsistencies and Demeanor Observations: The IJ documented specific instances where Singh’s statements conflicted—timing of his first and second alleged attacks, mode of transport to medical care, reporting of threats, even the existence of a brother said to have died shortly before the hearing. The IJ also found Singh evasive in demeanor. These factors satisfy the statutory list (including “demeanor, candor, responsiveness,” internal and external consistency) and case law (Jin Chen; Li Hua Lin).
Failure to Corroborate and Exclusion of New Evidence: Because credibility was impugned, corroboration became critical (Biao Yang). Singh’s affidavits contradicted his own testimony and came from interested, non–cross-examined witnesses (Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 149 n.8). New documents introduced on appeal were excluded under Li Yong Cao for lack of explanation as to materiality, unavailability, and probative impact.

Impact

Although summary orders do not establish binding precedent, Singh v. Bondi demonstrates the continued vigor with which the Second Circuit applies the totality-of-the-circumstances credibility framework. Immigration practitioners should note:

Detailed, consistent testimony is critical; multiple minor inconsistencies can be fatal.
Affidavits from interested parties must align with live testimony and be subject to cross-examination where possible.
New documentary evidence post-hearing must satisfy the Li Yong Cao criteria or risk exclusion.
Adverse credibility findings may foreclose all forms of protection when based on the same factual assertions.

Future cases will likely cite this decision when upholding adverse credibility determinations under the substantial evidence standard, particularly where petitioners attempt to rehabilitate inconsistent testimony with late-submitted documents.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial Evidence Standard: A court will uphold an administrative finding unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” This is a high bar for petitioners to overcome.
Totality of the Circumstances Framework: Credibility determinations consider all relevant items: demeanor, consistency (within and across statements), and corroboration with external evidence (including country‐conditions reports).
Corroboration Requirement: When an IJ doubts testimony, the petitioner must produce independent evidence (medical records, police reports, affidavits) that is reliable and available for confrontation.
Li Yong Cao Remand Test: To secure a remand for new evidence, an applicant must show the evidence is material, was previously unavailable despite due diligence, and likely would change the outcome.

Conclusion

Singh v. Bondi reaffirms the Second Circuit’s rigorous application of the adverse credibility framework under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) and the substantial evidence standard. By meticulously cataloguing inconsistencies and demanding reliable corroboration, the decision underscores the challenges petitioners face when credibility is questioned. The case serves as a reminder for practitioners to prepare consistent testimony, timely submit corroborative documentation, and anticipate strict judicial deference to agency fact-finding in immigration proceedings.