“Evolving-Claim Credibility” – Second Circuit Clarifies Deference Owed to Immigration Judges When Asylum Applicants Expand or Alter Their Narrative

Introduction

Singh v. Bondi, No. 23-6319 (2d Cir. May 9 2025) concerns Kulwant Singh, an Indian national who sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, finding Singh not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, and the Second Circuit has now denied Singh’s petition for review.

The crucial question before the Court was whether substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, particularly where the applicant’s story “evolved” to include new political allegiances and fears not originally articulated. The case ties together multiple strands of Second Circuit precedent on demeanor findings, inconsistencies, vagueness, and corroboration.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit applied the substantial evidence standard to the IJ’s factual findings and reviewed legal conclusions de novo.
The Court found that Singh’s shifting narrative—from fearing only Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) supporters in his written materials to fearing multiple parties and claiming affiliation with the Mann Party in live testimony—justified the IJ’s credibility concerns.
Additional grounds bolstering the adverse credibility finding included: (1) inconsistent demeanor between direct and cross-examination, (2) vague and implausible responses despite repeated probing, and (3) lack of reliable corroborative evidence.
Because credibility was dispositive of all three forms of relief (asylum, withholding, CAT), the petition for review was denied in full.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018) – Reaffirmed the “totality of the circumstances” approach and defined how omissions can be probative when an applicant “reasonably would have been expected” to disclose certain facts.
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) – Emphasized deference to IJ credibility findings unless “no reasonable fact-finder” could agree.
Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2020) – Supported reliance on demeanor observations and limited weight accorded to interested-party affidavits not subject to cross-examination.
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) – Stated that a petitioner must do more than provide a “plausible” explanation for inconsistencies.
Jin Chen v. U.S. DOJ, 426 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2005) and Li Hua Lin v. U.S. DOJ, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2006) – Stressed deference to demeanor findings when tied to specific inconsistencies.
Other supportive cases: Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141 (vagueness after probing); Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (logical deductions); Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (corroboration and credibility); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (weight of affidavits).
Statutory anchors: 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (credibility factors) and § 1252(b)(4)(B) (conclusiveness of factual findings).

Legal Reasoning Adopted by the Court

Demeanor Deference. The IJ observed a stark change between Singh’s fluent, rehearsed direct testimony and his evasive, hesitant answers on cross-examination. Under Jin Chen and Likai Gao, such observations warrant high deference.
Evolving Narrative. Singh’s initial application cited only DSS foes. Live testimony newly referenced Congress Party, BJP, and personal work for the Mann Party. Under Hong Fei Gao, the omission of central political facts in earlier statements is probative of credibility.
Vagueness and Implausibility. When pressed for details (for example about his alleged “construction work” in England or the timing of his father’s death), Singh provided contradictory or opaque answers. The Court, following Shunfu Li, found IJ’s skepticism reasonable.
Corroborative Weakness. Affidavits from Singh’s wife and physician mirrored his statement almost verbatim, lacked contemporaneity, and declarants were unavailable for cross-examination. Under Biao Yang and Y.C., such evidence does not rehabilitate credibility.

Impact of the Decision

Although styled as a “Summary Order” and thus technically non-precedential under FRAP 32.1, Singh v. Bondi carries persuasive value in three key respects:

Codifying “Evolving-Claim Credibility”. The case distills prior rulings into a clear signal: when an applicant’s core claim expands at hearing, tribunals are justified in finding the narrative suspect unless robust explanations and corroboration exist.
Reinforcing Demeanor Findings. The Court highlights that demeanor plus specific inconsistencies is a fortified ground for adverse credibility, a useful blueprint for IJs drafting defensible opinions.
Guidance on Corroboration. The opinion underscores that boiler-plate affidavits—especially from interested parties—hold limited rehabilitative power without independent verification.

Practitioners litigating asylum claims should therefore anticipate intensive scrutiny of any post-application embellishments and prepare contemporaneous, neutral corroborative evidence wherever possible.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adverse Credibility Determination – A finding that the applicant’s testimony is not believable. Because asylum cases often hinge on personal narratives, losing credibility can doom all requested relief.
Substantial Evidence Standard – The reviewing court must uphold factual findings unless any reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to reach the opposite conclusion—an intentionally deferential test.
Withholding of Removal – A form of protection stricter than asylum: the applicant must show a “clear probability” of persecution on a protected ground.
Convention Against Torture (CAT) Relief – Protection from removal if it is “more likely than not” the individual would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, the home government.
Summary Order / Non-Precedential – An appellate disposition that, while public and citable, does not bind future panels. It can still guide practitioners through its persuasive reasoning.
Corroboration – Independent documents or testimony that confirm an applicant’s story. Lack of credible corroboration can reinforce an adverse credibility finding.

Conclusion

Singh v. Bondi does not break new doctrinal ground so much as synthesize existing Second Circuit jurisprudence into a vivid template: when an asylum applicant’s story grows in scope at hearing, tribunals may—and often should—view the change with skepticism, especially if demeanor, vagueness, and weak corroboration reinforce doubt. Although issued as a non-precedential Summary Order, the decision will likely be cited for its practical exposition of the “evolving-claim” principle and for its emphatic endorsement of IJ discretion in credibility matters. Future applicants and counsel must ensure internal consistency from the first filing forward, proactively address omissions, and marshal robust, independent evidence lest they succumb to the very pitfalls that doomed Singh’s petition.