Nardeep Singh v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES On

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3126
___________
NARDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A95 577 007
Immigration Judge: Margaret R. Reichenberg
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 1, 2009
Before: MCKEE, HARDIMAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed: October 21, 2009
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Nardeep Singh petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) final
removal order. We will deny the petition.

-- 1 of 6 --

Singh was ordered removed in absentia, but his subsequent motion to reopen was1
granted and venue was changed to New Jersey, because he had moved.
2
I.
Singh is a native and citizen of India. He testified that he first entered the United
States in 1994 (without a passport or visa). He returned to India in mid-June 2000 using
someone else’s passport because he had learned that his father had been arrested on June
6, 2000 due to his involvement with the Shormani Akali Dal Committee political party
that advocates for the creation of Khalistan. His father was no longer in prison when he
returned, but his father was rearrested in January 2001, and was tortured during his 4-day
detention. Police came to the family home again on June 5, 2001 to arrest Nardeep’s
father, but he was not home. The police beat Nardeep and dragged him to the police
station, where he was detained for four days. He was brutally beaten and his arm was
broken. He was hospitalized for three to five days after his release. The police began
visiting the family home looking for Nardeep, so he left for the United States.
Singh applied for asylum in California, and asylum was conditionally granted, but
it was cancelled when the Government learned that Singh had been arrested twice for
larceny in New York in 1999. A.R. 412. Singh’s asylum application had stated that he
resided in India from Oct. 1978 to June 2001, and had not disclosed any previous time in
the United States. Id. The asylum application was referred to the Immigration Court.1
Singh was allowed to amend his application. The IJ found that Singh was not credible.

-- 2 of 6 --

3
The IJ found that Singh had submitted contradictory and partially fraudulent proofs of
identity. His arrest records showed the names “Sunn Singh” and “Nardip Singh” and
gave incorrect birthdates. Singh said he was not aware how these discrepancies appeared,
as he did not lie to the police. Singh submitted a “ration card” issued to his father dated
1999 that includes a photograph of the family, including Nardeep. He stated that the
photograph was taken in 2000, but the IJ did not credit his explanation that the reason that
a photo taken in 2000 was affixed to a card issued in 1999 must have been because it was
reissued. Singh also submitted an Indian driver’s license. A forensics report indicated
that the license was produced on an ink jet printer and it included a misspelled word.
Singh could not provide any information about his living situation in the United States
between 1994 and 2000; he could not remember the names of cities he lived in or names
of people he lived with, aside from a few nicknames.
The IJ also faulted Singh for failing to provide corroborating evidence regarding
events in India. Singh testified that his arm was broken, but the medical report submitted
mentions only cuts and bruises. The IJ also noted that the medical report regarding
Singh’s father and the one regarding Nardeep “are largely identical save for the dates.”
Singh did not produce any record of his arrest.
The IJ found that Singh had not established with credible testimony or evidence that
he had filed his asylum claim within one year of entry to the United States. Alternatively,
the IJ found that Singh was not a “refugee” within the meaning of the Immigration and

-- 3 of 6 --

4
Nationality Act, as he had not provided evidence that he feared persecution on the basis of
his Sikh religion, Singh acknowledged that he had never been a member of a political
party, and he did not establish that police imputed his father’s political opinion to him.
The IJ also found no evidence that Singh would be persecuted as a member of a particular
social group, and found no evidence of a pattern or practice of persecution of those
associated with the Shormani Akali Dal Committee. The IJ denied all relief.
The BIA found that the adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous, and
also noted that Singh failed to meet his burden regarding past persecution because he did
not belong to a political party, and failed to show that his father’s opinions had been
imputed to him. The BIA also noted that Singh had not presented persuasive evidence that
he feared persecution on religious grounds or any other grounds. The BIA held that even
if Singh’s asylum application had been timely filed, he did not establish eligibility for
asylum relief on the merits. Proceeding pro se, Singh filed a timely petition for review.
II.
We review the final order of the BIA, but to the extent that the BIA adopts parts of
the IJ’s opinion, we review the IJ’s opinion to determine whether the BIA’s decision to
defer to the IJ was appropriate. Zhang v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 150, 155 (3d Cir. 2005).
“We will uphold the [adverse credibility] findings . . . to the extent that they are supported
by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole, and
will reverse those findings only if there is evidence so compelling that no reasonable

-- 4 of 6 --

The provisions of the Real ID Act of 2005 regarding review of adverse credibility2
findings do not apply to cases such as this one, where the asylum application was filed
before the enactment of the Real ID Act. Real ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div.
B, § 101, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005).
5
factfinder could conclude as the [IJ] did.” Kayembe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 231, 234 (3d
Cir. 2003). In general, “minor inconsistencies and minor admissions that reveal nothing
about an . . . applicant’s fear for his safety are not an adequate basis for an adverse
credibility finding.” Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation
and citation omitted). Any discrepancies must involve the heart of the claim. Id.2
The IJ identified several factors supporting her adverse credibility finding:
problems with documents Singh produced to establish his identity; his inability to give
information about where he was living in the United States and with whom between 1994
and 2000; and an inconsistency between his testimony (his arm was broken when he was
beaten in India) and the medical record he submitted (no mention of a broken arm). Singh
argues that where he was from 1994 to 2000 is irrelevant to his asylum claim; even
assuming he is correct, the other factors cited by the IJ involve the “heart” of Singh’s
asylum claim.
Singh’s claim is based on his allegation that he was detained and beaten in India in
2001. However, the documents Singh produced to show that he returned to India in 2000
and 2001 are questionable. His explanation of how a photo that he alleges was taken in
2000 came to be affixed to a ration card issued in 1999 does not ring true. The driver’s

-- 5 of 6 --

Because we uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, we need not discuss the IJ’s3
finding that Singh failed to sufficiently corroborate his claim and her alternative finding
that Singh failed to show that any persecution would be on the basis of a statutorily-
protected ground.
6
license that he alleges was issued in India in 2000 was produced on a laser-jet printer and
contains a misspelled word. A bank book allegedly relating to an account he opened in
India in September 2001 “contains no indication of who specifically opened the account or
made the listed transactions;” Singh also admitted that “anyone in his family can make
transactions.” IJ’s decision at 11; A.R. 77. Further, Singh’s testimony that his arm was
broken in custody is contradicted by the medical report he produced. While Singh argues
that he was not given a chance to explain this discrepancy, he certainly should have been
aware of the contents of any exhibits he submitted in support of his asylum claim, and he
could have offered an explanation without being prompted to do so. Given the
unreliability of Singh’s documentary evidence, we do not feel compelled to conclude that
Singh was credible. Lin-Zheng v. Attorney General, 557 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 2009); 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).3
Because Singh did not credibly testify regarding past persecution or the likelihood
of future persecution, the IJ and BIA properly denied Singh asylum and withholding of
removal. We further agree that Singh did not produce any evidence that he is likely to be
tortured if he returns to India. We will thus deny the petition for review.

-- 6 of 6 --