Amaresen v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
March 28, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60281
Summary Calendar
SRISRAM AMARESEN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A 75 895 937
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sri Lankan citizen Srisram Amaresen petitions for review of
the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
his appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying
his requests for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture. For the following reasons,
Amaresen’s petition is DENIED.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
First, we will not disturb the administrative finding that
Amaresen was noncredible as a witness.1 Because Amaresen was
noncredible, his own statements and testimony about his individual
situation may be disregarded. Nothing in the record indicated that
the Sri Lankan government systematically persecutes Tamils who are
not suspected of involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam (LTTE) solely by virtue of their ethnicity or by virtue of
their area of origin. Amaresen has failed to show that he is
entitled to asylum or withholding of deportation.2
Second, regarding Amaresen’s claim under the Convention
Against Torture, apart from the nonconsideration of the documentary
evidence of country conditions in Sri Lanka, the concerns expressed
by our sister circuits in Mansour v. INS3 and Kamalthas v. INS4 were
largely absent in Amaresen’s case. Both the IJ and BIA indicated
that they realized the different analytical frameworks for asylum
and Convention Against Torture claims, and the credibility
determination relevant to Amaresen’s asylum claim also was relevant
to his Convention Against Torture claim. Finally, while the
documentary evidence in Amaresen’s case indicates that torture
remains an issue in Sri Lanka, the Eighth Circuit has noted that
1
See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).
2
See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994).
3
230 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 2000).
4
251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001).
2
there is no evidence that returnees to Sri Lanka who had sought
asylum are being tortured.5 Amaresen has failed to demonstrate
that he is entitled to relief.6
AFFIRMED.
5
Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 599 (8th Cir. 2002).
6
See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906-07 (5th Cir. 2002).
3