Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01158/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01158-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Sinnathurai Sivakaran
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1158

___________

Sinnathurai Sivakaran, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the *

United States of America, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: March 19, 2004

Filed: May 25, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Sinnathurai Sivakaran, a citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s)

denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). For reversal, Sivakaran argues that, among other

things, the IJ improperly found he was not credible and had not met his burden of

proof for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. For the reasons discussed

below, we affirm in part and remand in part.

Appellate Case: 03-1158 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2004 Entry ID: 1770482 
-2-

We conclude that the BIA’s decision on Sivakaran’s asylum application is

supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Menendez-Donis v.

Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 918-19 (8th Cir. 2004). Specifically, the IJ discredited

Sivakaran’s testimony about past persecution he suffered, and we defer to that

credibility finding because it was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief.

See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (deference

standard). In light of the adverse credibility determination and Sivakaran’s failure to

provide corroborative evidence, his asylum claim fails, regardless of the reason for

the alleged persecution, see Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 709-10 (8th Cir.

2003), amended by No. 02-3004, slip op. (8th Cir. Apr. 28, 2004); and because

Sivakaran failed to meet the lower burden of proof on the asylum claim, he also failed

to meet the higher burden for withholding of removal, see Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d

926, 932-33 (8th Cir. 2002).

We conclude that without further factfinding and analysis as to whether

Sivakaran is more likely than not to suffer torture within the meaning of the CAT if

returned to Sri Lanka, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2003), we are unable to review the

disposition of Sivakaran’s CAT claim. See Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 820,

828 (8th Cir. 2004) (remanding CAT claim for further factfinding because IJ’s brief

analysis was inadequate, and immigration court is proper forum to make factual

determinations relevant to CAT claim). We note that the IJ’s adverse credibility

determination and adverse decisions on asylum and withholding of removal are not

determinative of the CAT claim. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 184-

86 (2d Cir. 2004) (finding that CAT inquiry is independent of asylum analysis);

Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 476 (3d Cir. 2003) (finding that adverse asylum

and withholding determinations did not control analysis of CAT claim, and stating

that “taint of the earlier adverse credibility determination” in asylum context should

not be allowed to “bleed through” to BIA’s consideration of CAT claim).

Appellate Case: 03-1158 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2004 Entry ID: 1770482 
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of

removal, and we vacate the BIA’s denial of Sivakaran’s CAT claim and remand for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1158 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/25/2004 Entry ID: 1770482