Singh v. Lynch, No. 15-1285 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 2011, Singh entered the U.S. through Texas, without a valid entry document, violating 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Singh is a Sikh and a member of the Shirmoani Akali Dal Amritsar (Mann Party). Detained by DHS, Singh asserted he feared persecution by the rival India Congress Party if returned to India. Singh stated that members of the Congress Party had twice beaten him for refusing to switch parties. The officer found Singh had “a credible fear of persecution” and referred Singh’s application for further consideration. Singh applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. An IJ continued Singh’s removal hearing to permit Singh to obtain new counsel. Singh’s retained counsel did not attend the rescheduled hearing, instead sending an unprepared associate. The IJ chastised counsel, but granted another continuance. At the rescheduled hearing Singh testified through an interpreter and provided documents to support his request for asylum. The IJ denied Singh’s application, finding Singh “not credible” because his testimony contradicted information he gave at his interview; he was evasive during cross-examination. The IJ alternatively found that, even if credible, Singh’s accounts of minor beatings and short detentions did “not rise to the level of persecution.” The BIA affirmed. The Eighth Circuit denied relief, rejecting claims of ineffective assistance.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The IJ and the BIA did not err in finding petitioner's inconsistent reports of persecution were insufficiently supported by the record and were outweighed by the totality of circumstances; the adverse credibility findings were based on substantial record evidence and supported by specific, cogent reasons; these adverse credibility findings are fatal to petitioner's claims for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief; the BIA did not err in rejecting petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as there is no Fifth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at a removal proceeding and, in any event, petitioner failed to show how his counsel's performance prejudiced him in light of the adverse credibility findings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.