The following excerpt is from Singh v. Barr, 18-13 NAC (2nd Cir. 2019):
First, the agency reasonably relied on Singh's inconsistent descriptions of the events surrounding the first attack that he reported suffering. In his written statement, Singh asserted that he stood outside the police station for "hours" before he was arrested, but he testified that he waited only "half an hour." The agency was not required to accept Singh's explanation for this inconsistency. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) ("A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled
Page 4
to credit his testimony." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.