Avtar Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Avtar Singh and Sukhraj Kaur petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The arguments raised in the petition are without merit.
First, Singh and Kaur contend that the immigration judge (“IJ”) coerced them into withdrawing their asylum application by (1) accepting the government’s frivolous warnings into evidence after Singh testified inconsistently as to several dates and events, (2) instructing Singh and Kaur’s counsel to inform Kaur of her right to seek voluntary departure instead of “implicating herself’ in Singh’s inconsistent testimony, and (3) making an unspecified statement off the record. It was not coercive for the IJ to make Kaur and Singh aware of the consequences of a finding that the asylum application was frivolous, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (d)(6) (imposing a permanent ban on admission), and of the benefits of voluntary departure, see id. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(ii) (imposing a 10-year ban on admission following departure under a removal order). And we decline to infer coercion from the mere fact that an off-the-record discussion took place, especially since Singh and Kaur concede that they do not know what was said. In sum, the…