Jasotharan Satkunanathan v. U.S. Attorney General ( 2013 )

Case: 12-14259 Date Filed: 09/09/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14259
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A200-615-729
JASOTHARAN SATKUNANATHAN,
Petitioner,
versus
US ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(September 9, 2013)
Before HULL, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14259 Date Filed: 09/09/2013 Page: 2 of 5
Jasotharan Satkunanathan, a Sri Lankan citizen of Tamil ethnicity, seeks
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his application
for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). On appeal,
Satkunanathan argues: (1) the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not
supported by law or by the record; (2) he demonstrated persecution on account of a
protected ground and demonstrated he was entitled to CAT relief; and (3) the BIA
failed to address his claim for asylum based on his status as a Tamil-failed-asylum-
seeker.1 After review, we deny Satkunanathan’s petition. 2
I. Adverse Credibility Determination
Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, credibility determinations are based upon
the totality of the circumstances, including: (1) the demeanor, candor, and
responsiveness of the applicant; (2) the plausibility of the applicant’s account;
1
Satkunanathan also argues the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s refusal to consider
evidence submitted after the imposed deadline. The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s refusal
to consider the late-submitted evidence because the IJ has discretion to set such deadlines and to
exclude subsequently submitted evidence. See Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1276
(11th Cir. 2009); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c).
2
Where the BIA issues its own opinion, we review only the BIA’s decision. Kueviakoe
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 567 F.3d 1301, 1304 (11th Cir. 2009). To the extent the BIA’s decision was
based upon a legal determination, we review de novo. D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d
814, 817 (11th Cir. 2004). The BIA’s factual determinations, including credibility
determinations, are reviewed under a substantial evidence standard, and we will affirm if the
decision “is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Id. at 817-18.
2
Case: 12-14259 Date Filed: 09/09/2013 Page: 3 of 5
(3) the consistency between the applicant’s written and oral statements; (4) the
internal consistency of each statement; and (5) the consistency of the applicant’s
statements with other record evidence, including country reports. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). An adverse credibility determination may be based on
inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and falsehoods that do not go to the “heart of the
applicant’s claim.” Id.Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination.
Satkunanathan voluntarily returned to Sri Lanka after reaching safety in India, and
provided no reasonable explanation for his return. In addition, the record included
a letter written to the justice of the peace in Sri Lanka by Satkunanathan’s father,
and Satkunanathan failed to provide an explanation for the letter’s suspect timing.
Moreover, Satkunanathan’s claims focus on threats from the Karuna group, but the
letter failed to mention this group, and Satkunanathan failed to provide a consistent
explanation for this discrepancy.
II. Asylum and CAT Relief
To establish eligibility for asylum relief, the alien must, with specific and
credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed
factor, or (2) a well-founded fear that the statutorily listed factor will cause future
persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). To establish entitlement to CAT relief, the
applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if
3
Case: 12-14259 Date Filed: 09/09/2013 Page: 4 of 5
returned to the proposed country of removal, by or with the acquiescence of the
government. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a).
Even putting aside the adverse credibility determination, the BIA did not err
in denying Satkunanathan’s claims for asylum and CAT relief. First,
Satkunanathan failed to show that at least one central reason for the harms he
suffered was based on a protected ground. With respect to the extortion by the
Karuna and the individuals at the airport, the record indicated these individuals
were interested in financial gain, not in targeting Satkunanathan based on his
ethnicity or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). With respect to his
detainment by army authorities, Satkunanathan’s testimony indicated he was
detained because he did not have proper documentation, and Satkunanthan did not
adequately demonstrate that the authorities persecuted him on the basis of an
imputed political opinion. Second, Satkunanathan failed to show he would be
targeted on account of a protected ground if he returned to Sri Lanka. Third,
Satkunanathan failed to present evidence that it was more likely than not that he
would be tortured upon return to Sri Lanka, either by or with the acquiescence of
the government. Accordingly, we deny Satkunanathan’s petition with respect to
these claims.
III. Satkunanathan’s Claim as a Tamil-Failed-Asylum-Seeker
4
Case: 12-14259 Date Filed: 09/09/2013 Page: 5 of 5
Finally, Satkunanathan claims the IJ and BIA failed to adjudicate his claim
for asylum and CAT relief on account of being a Tamil-failed-asylum-seeker.
However, the IJ rejected Satkunanathan’s assertions, and the BIA specifically
referenced the IJ’s conclusion that potential punishment for illegal departure would
not qualify Satkunanathan for protection. In light of the BIA’s conclusion that any
potential punishment faced by Satkunanathan for illegal departure from Sri Lanka
would not give rise to an asylum claim, as well as the detailed nature of the BIA’s
decision, the BIA gave reasoned consideration to Satkunanathan’s claims. See Tan
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny
Satkunanathan’s petition.
PETITION DENIED.
5