Case Explained: SINGH V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-17 The Ninth Circuit denied Amritpal Singh’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court applied a substantial evidence standard to factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, and reviewed legal questions de novo. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination because Singh’s testimony contradicted itself and his written applications regarding non-trivial facts, while his narrative was more compelling than the documentary evidence he submitted. The court found the immigration judge reasonably rejected Singh’s explanation of confusion as an excuse for these inconsistencies, noting Singh had ample opportunity to clarify but instead reaffirmed the contradictions before retracting them. Because Singh waived any challenge to the agency’s finding that his documentary evidence failed to rehabilitate his testimony or independently meet his burden of proof, and because he cannot satisfy his burden of proof without credible testimony or sufficient corroboration, the petition was denied. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.