death certificate and medical records did not state the causes of death or injury, the statements from the party president and Singh’s family were inconsistent’ with Singh’s statements to the AO, and because his mother and uncle were interested witnesses not subject to cross examination. As to Singh’s mental competency, the IJ determined that, despite his PTSD diagnosis, Singh was competent to participate in the removal proceedings because he was able to communicate with his attorney and rationally relate his testimony to the court. Accordingly, because he “presented testimony in a coherent, linear manner,” the IJ' determined -that Matter of J-R-RA- did not require a finding that Singh’s alleged fear of harm was subjectively genuine. See Matter of J-R-R-A-, 26 I & N Dec. 609 (BIA 2016) (<HOLDING>). In light of the adverse credibility
holding that when applicant is deemed incompetent or is unable to provide testimony in a coherent linear manner due to mental illness or serious cognitive disability the ij should as a safeguard generally accept that the applicant believes what he has presented even though his account may not be believable to others or otherwise sufficient to support the claim holding that a mental illness limitation limiting the maximum payment for care of mental illness or care of nervous conditions of any type or cause is ambiguous because the plan contains no definition or explanation of the term mental illness  and thus construed against the insurance company does not include physically based illnesses holding that the due process clause permits the state to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmates medical interest holding that a mental illness limitation containing the exact language at issue in this case is ambiguous because it does not specify whether a disability is to be classified as mental by looking to the cause of the disability or to its symptoms and thus construed in favor of the insured does not encompass organically based illnesses holding that if an experts opinion is dependent upon information that is inaccurate or lacks support in the record it is deemed incompetent