Jasvir Singh Multani v. Merrick Garland

background evidence in the record and cited the IJ’s finding that the country

background documentation was insufficient to support Singh’s claim that Mann

Party members have been violently attacked or otherwise persecuted in India due

to their political views. See Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 975–76 (9th Cir. 2015),

overruled on other grounds by Alam, 11 F.4th at 1136; see also 8 U.S.C. §

1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (credibility determination may be based on “the consistency of .

. . statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the

Department of State on country conditions)”).

Finally, regarding (4), the BIA reasonably “gave minimal weight to letters

from Mann [P]arty members who did not have first-hand knowledge of the alleged

incidents,” as well as an affidavit submitted by Singh’s uncle who, “while a

witness to one alleged attack, was not subject to cross-examination.” The BIA

also cited the IJ’s finding that an affidavit from a medical practitioner “was

insufficient to corroborate the cause of... [Singh’s] injuries.” Neither the IJ nor

the BIA ignored the submissions outright, but instead assessed them as less

credible. Substantial evidence…