Murugavel Jeyarajah v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

Case: 12-60952 Document: 00512525235 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 12-60952 February 6, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
MURUGAVEL JEYARAJAH,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 070 407
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Murugavel Jeyarajah, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for
review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his
application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Jeyarajah asserted that he was entitled to relief based
on his status as a Tamil. The immigration judge (IJ) determined that
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 12-60952 Document: 00512525235 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2014
No. 12-60952
Jeyarajah was not credible and had failed to credibly establish his entitlement
to relief. The BIA agreed and affirmed the IJ’s decision.
Jeyarajah argues that the BIA and IJ erred in making an adverse
credibility determination, erred in requiring corroborating evidence, and erred
in determining that he was not entitled to relief under the CAT. He also argues
that the BIA made an impermissible fact finding in determining that he failed
to show a “pattern or practice” of persecution of Tamils in Sri Lanka.
Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision based on the IJ’s reasoning,
we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d
531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002).
The record in this case reflects that Jeyarajah made numerous false
statements during his credible fear hearing. Even if there could be reasonable
explanations for some of the discrepancies relied upon by the IJ in making her
adverse credibility determination, Jeyarajah has failed to demonstrate that
“from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 538
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, because Jeyarajah
was deemed not credible, it was not unreasonable that he prove his eligibility
for asylum using evidence other than his own testimony. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 585-87 (5th Cir. 2011),
cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2772 (2012). Moreover, in light of the record, the IJ was
not compelled to conclude that corroborating evidence was unavailable. See
Rui, 664 F.3d at 587.
As for his claim that the BIA engaged in improper fact finding, Jeyarajah
did not raise this issue in the BIA either in a motion to reopen or a motion for
reconsideration. Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the
2
Case: 12-60952 Document: 00512525235 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/06/2014
No. 12-60952
issue. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-21 (5th
Cir. 2009).
Finally, with respect to Jeyarajah’s argument that the IJ and BIA erred
in concluding that he was not eligible for relief under the CAT because they
failed to consider his ethnic background, we note that relief was not denied on
that basis. Rather, the IJ determined that Jeyarajah was not credible and, as
a result, had failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would
be tortured if he were returned to Sri Lanka. The evidence does not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 537.
Accordingly, Jeyarajah’s petition for review is DENIED.
3