UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RANJIT SINGH, No. 23-2065 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-587-181 v. OPINION MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 8, 2024 * Las Vegas, Nevada

Filed December 24, 2024

Before: Carlos T. Bea, Morgan B. Christen, and Mark J. Bennett, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Bea

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 SINGH V. GARLAND

SUMMARY **

Immigration

Granting Ranjit Singh’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen, and remanding, the panel concluded that the BIA improperly relied on the agency’s prior adverse credibility determination in discrediting Singh’s affidavit, which asserted new facts and claims that were dissimilar to the facts and claims he asserted in the underlying proceedings. Singh initially claimed a fear of persecution by members of the Shiromani Akali Dal Badal party (“Badal Party”) due to his political opinion in support of the Simranjit Singh Mann party (“Mann Party”). Based on inconsistencies in the record, an immigration judge accorded no evidentiary weight to Singh’s written or oral testimony, and concluded that Singh’s documentary evidence, standing alone, was insufficient to support his application. Singh sought to reopen his case, asserting a new fear of persecution based on the Indian government’s passage of certain agricultural reform laws. This time, he claimed to be eligible for relief and protection based on his religion as a Sikh, his membership in a particular social group comprised of farmers, as well as his political opinions opposing the new agricultural laws and supporting the Mann Party. In denying Singh’s motion, the BIA concluded that Singh’s new affidavit and documentary evidence were immaterial due to the prior adverse credibility determination. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. SINGH V. GARLAND 3

The panel concluded that the BIA improperly applied the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus maxim to discount Singh’s new evidence. The panel explained that the BIA must credit evidence supporting a motion to reopen unless the facts asserted in that evidence are “inherently unbelievable.” This rule does not foreclose the BIA from considering evidence that has already been examined and discredited at an alien’s prior removal proceedings, weighing it against new evidence submitted at the motion-to-reopen stage that must be taken as true unless inherently unbelievable, and concluding the alien is on balance ineligible for the requested relief. However, if the alien submits new evidence based on information independent of the prior adverse credibility finding, the BIA must address it. Here, because the BIA did not find any of the new factual assertions in Singh’s new statement inherently unbelievable, and instead rejected them simply because an IJ had found Singh’s previous testimony on different claims for relief not credible, the panel concluded that the Board abused its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen. The panel remanded for further proceedings.

COUNSEL Ranjit Singh, Pro Se, San Rafael, California; Jaspreet Singh, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Richmond Hill, New York; for Petitioner. Marie V. Robinson