RUPINDER SINGH V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 19-73107 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner initially sought asylum claiming that he was persecuted in India on account of being a Sikh who supports the creation of Khalistan and the Akali Dal (Mann) Party. An immigration judge denied Petitioner’s claims after concluding that Petitioner’s testimony was not credible because of inconsistencies and a lack of detail. The IJ also highlighted a State Department report showing that the situation for Sikhs had greatly normalized and the IJ found further that Petitioner had failed to even establish his identity.
The Ninth Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition. The panel held that the BIA erred in holding that earlier adverse credibility finding barred Petitioner’s motion to reopen, and in concluding that Petitioner failed to show that the conditions for Sikhs in India had changed qualitatively since his last hearing.
The panel explained that although the BIA may rely on a previous adverse credibility determination to deny a motion to reopen if that earlier finding still factually undermines the petitioner’s new argument, here, Petitioner’s motion included newly submitted evidence based on information independent of the prior adverse credibility finding.
The panel concluded that the BIA erred in rejecting Petitioner’s new evidence for two other reasons. First, the panel held that the record did not support the BIA’s determination that Petitioner was not similarly situated to the people harmed in 2017 political violence. Second, the panel held that Petitioner provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that the conditions for Sikhs in India had changed in the two decades since his asylum hearing.
Court Description: Immigration. Granting Rupinder Singh’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanding, the panel held that the BIA erred in holding that an earlier adverse credibility finding barred Singh’s motion to reopen, and in concluding that Singh failed to show that the conditions for Sikhs in India had changed qualitatively since his last hearing. Singh initially sought asylum claiming that he was persecuted in India on account of being a Sikh who supports the creation of Khalistan and the Akali Dal (Mann) Party. An immigration judge denied Singh’s claims after concluding that Singh’s testimony was not credible because of inconsistencies and a lack of detail. The IJ also highlighted a State Department report showing that the situation for Sikhs had greatly normalized and, noting that Singh’s family had not responded to his requests for documents, the IJ found further that Singh had failed to even establish his identity. Singh sought to reopen based on changed country conditions, and the BIA concluded that Singh had not establish materially changed conditions. In doing so, the BIA noted that Singh’s prior adverse credibility finding was relevant in considering the evidence of changed country conditions. SINGH V. GARLAND 3 The panel held that the BIA erred in concluding that Singh’s motion was foreclosed by the prior adverse credibility determination. The panel explained that although the BIA may rely on a previous adverse credibility determination to deny a motion to reopen if that earlier finding still factually undermines the petitioner’s new argument, here, Singh’s motion included newly submitted evidence based on information independent of the prior adverse credibility finding. Among other documents, the motion to reopen included Singh’s birth certificate, a letter from a Mann leader attesting to his membership in the party, and a letter from his mother stating that the police were looking for Singh. The panel explained that this evidence was independent of the facts that formed the prior credibility finding, and in fact filled some gaps on which the adverse credibility finding was predicated. The panel noted that the IJ had expressly relied on the lack of such corroborating evidence to find Singh not credible. Thus, the prior adverse credibility finding logically could not have implicated the newly submitted evidence. The panel concluded that the BIA erred in rejecting Singh’s new evidence for two other reasons. First, the panel held that the record did not support the BIA’s determination that Singh was not similarly situated to the people harmed in 2017 political violence. The panel noted that news reports showed that in 2017 the Punjabi police determined that the Sikh insurgency was returning based on a string of killing of non-Sikhs. In response, the police arrested many Sikhs who were allegedly planning to carry out terror activities in the state. The reports also stated the police suspected that these alleged Sikh terrorists were recruited online and radicalized outside India. The panel wrote that these reports of worsening conditions link directly to Singh’s claim because the affidavit from Singh’s mother stated that the police were 4 SINGH V. GARLAND looking for Singh in 2018 and suspected him of receiving military training in Pakistan. Second, the panel held that Singh provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that the conditions for Sikhs in India had changed in the two decades since his asylum hearing. The panel explained that the BIA abuses its discretion when it concludes that the conditions portrayed in the evidence represent a mere continuation of existing conditions by disregarding the evidence of changed conditions. In this case, the country conditions evidence revealed a marked change both for Sikhs generally, and for Singh and his family specifically, compared to the conditions at the time of Singh’s original hearing in 1997. The panel remanded for the agency to address Singh’s new evidence. Singh’s motion also included a new claim for relief based on his membership in a family social group. Observing that this court has held that family is the “the quintessential particular social group,” the panel concluded that the agency was correct that Singh did not establish any nexus between his family membership and the harm he fears, where Singh failed to present any argument that his family membership was “one central reason” or “a reason” for his alleged persecution and the persecution he fears. The panel explained that at most, the letter from his mother provided evidence that she was mistreated because of her kinship to him. But the BIA correctly concluded that Singh’s mother’s mistreatment does not show that Singh would be persecuted because of his relationship to her. SINGH V. GARLAND 5
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.