2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-17-2010 

# B h agee rath aran v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3440

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " B h ag e e r ath ar an v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1146. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1146H onor abl e K athar i ne S. H ay den, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew * J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT 

### Nos . 07- 3440 and 07- 4640 KAMALE S WARI BH AGE E RA T HAR AN; B H A G E E R A T H A R A N G U R U N A T H A P IL L A I; NI RU BA N B HAGE E RA T HAR AN, P eti ti o n ers

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent P ET I TI ON FOR RE VI EW OF ORDERS O F TH E B O A RD O F I M M I G RA TI O N A PPEA LS ( A gencyN os . A 77- 013- 997, A 77- 013- 998 and A 77- 013- 999) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay11, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges and H A Y D E N , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 17, 2010)

OP I NI ONT am il is a d ist inct ethn ic gro u p , rep rese n ti n g ab o u t 5% o f th e p o p u lat ion o f S ri 1 L anka. -2- B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m ed the dec i s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) w hi ch had de ni ed as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”) to lea d P eti ti o n er, K am alesw ari B hagee r athar an ( the “Pet i t i oner ”) . T he B I A al s o r ej ect ed Pet i t i oner ’ s s ubs equentm ot i on to re o p e n . S h e p e titio n s f o r r e v ie w o f

b o th o rd e rs . W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n s . I . Backg r ound Pet i t i oneri s a Tam i l w om an fr om Sr i L anka. She cl ai m ed i n heras y l um 1 appl i cat i on thats he fl ed Sr i L anka a nd w as afr ai d t o r eturn beca us e of pa s tper s ecut i on by m ember s of the Sr i L ankan a r m yand mem ber s of the Li ber at i on T i ger s of Tam i l E el am ( “LT T E ” or“Tam i l T i ger s ”) , a U . S. - des i gnat ed For ei gn T err or i s tO r gani zat i on w hi ch has l ong s oughtan i ndepende nts t at e byfor ce i n Sr i L anka. A ccor di ng t o Pet i t i oner , w ho w or ked ata hos pi t al dur i ng atl eas tpartof the t i m e of the per s ecut i on, m ember s of the L T T E threa tene d to k il l her if sh e w o u ld n o t give them m ed ici n e. T h e a rm y , h o w ev er, forbade s uppor t i ng the LT T E , and s ol di er s r egul ar l yvi s i t ed the hos pi t al t o enfor ce that m andat e. Pet i t i onerfea r ed thatthe arm yw oul d thi nk s he w as pr ovi di ng m edi ci ne t o the me mb e r s o f

th e LT TE . S h e d e s c r i b e s o n e p a r t i c u l a r l yh a r s h e n c o u n t e rwh e n a r my so ld ier s to rtu re d h e r in a n a ttem p t to g e t h e r to a d m it th a t sh e w a s p ro v id in g m e d icin e to-3-

th e L T T E . T h e so ld ier s lo c k e d h e r u p f o r e ig h t d a y s, a n d u se d p h y sic a l in tim id a tio n to gethert o t al k, i ncl udi ng gr abbi ng herhai r , s haki ng and s l appi ng her , agi t at i ng her b re a th in g w ith c h ili p o w d e r, an d to u c h in g h e r b re a st. S h e c laim s th a t h e r f a th e r p a id to h a v e h e rr e l e a s e d , a n d th e r e a f t e rs h e f e a r e d f o rh e rs a f

e ty. Pet i t i onerfl ed t o G erm anyi n 1997, w her e s he metherhus band, G urunathapi l l l ai B ahethar an, w i th w hom s he s ubs equent l yhad a s on. A ft ertheyw er e deni ed as y l um by G erm anyi n 2001, Pet i t i onerand herfami l yfl ed t o C anada . O n the w ayt o C anada , Pet i t i onerw as s t opped atFor tL auder dal e I nt ernat i onal A i rpor ti n Fl or i da w her e U ni t ed St at es i m m i gr at i on offi ci al s ques t i oned herand as ked hert o gi ve a s w orn s t at ement . She wa s n o th o n e s twi th th o s e o f f i c i a l s . S h e t o l d th e m th a ts h e a n d h e rf a mi l yh a d c o me d ir ec tl yfro m S ri L an k a a n d that their pu rpo se in en teri n g the U n it ed S tat es w as “ [t]o es cape the s hel l i ng and bombi ng i n Sr i L anka a nd pr ot ectm ychi l d. ” ( A . at523. ) She s ai d thats he and he rhus band coul d “no l ongerl i ve i n peac e w i th ourchi l d beca us e of the bom bs and tr oubl e. ” (Id . ) O f cour s e, s he had ne verl i ved i n Sr i L anka w i th herhus band and chi l d, and s he w oul d l at erexpl ai n, i n heras y l um appl i cat i on, thatw hats he fe ar ed w a s p e rs o n a l v io le n c e . A fter P eti ti o n er a n d h er f am il yw ere p aro led, th eyco n ti n u ed o n to C an ad a, w h ere theyli v ed u n ti l 20 0 6 . W h il e in C an ad a, P eti ti o n er w o rke d at th e C h en ch o lai T am il K id’s C l ub, t eac hi ng m ath, r el i gi on and the Tam i l l anguage . C anada deni ed heras y l um appl i cat i on i n 2006, and s he and he rfami l yr eturned t o the U ni t ed St at es t o cont i nue-4-

p u rsu in g th e a p p lica tio n u n d e rly in g th e c a se n o w b e f o re u s (w h ich th e ya p p a re n tly in itia te d d u ri n g a 2 0 0 3 tr ip to th e U n ite d S ta te s ). I n a M ay25, 2006 or al deci s i on and or der , the I J deni ed as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. T he I J acknow l edged our p rec ed en t abo u t ai rpo rtinterview s, in w h ich w e h av e c o u n seled ag ains t giving airpo rt interview s too m u ch w eigh t i n asse ssing the c red ibil ityo f a n asy lum ap p li ca n t. T h e IJ nonethel es s m ade a n adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on beca us e the ai rpor ti nt ervi ew ap p ea red to b e re li ab le (e. g . , P eti ti o n er w as g iven ac ce ss to a T am il lang u ag e interp reter) and bec aus e Pet i t i oner ’ s i ncons i s t ents t at ement s w er e s i gni fi cant . I n deny i ng her a p p lica tio n , the IJ e x p lain e d th a t “th e C o u rt w o u ld n e e d to re lyo n th e re sp o n d e n t as sh e is s o i m por t anti n eval uat i ng hercl ai m s . ” ( A . at223. ) T he B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on i n J u l y 2 0 0 7 , a f

t e rc o n s i d e r i n g a n d f

i n d i n g n o e rr o ri n th e I J 's r e l i a n c e o n P e t i t i o n e r 's a irp o rt in te rv ie w , a n d s h e p e titio n s f o r r e v ie w o f

th a t o rd e r. Pet i t i onerthen br oughta mot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on cha nged ci r cumst ance s and o f f e re d a s e v id e n c e se v e ra l n e w sp a p e r a rticle s a n d re p o rts f ro m A m n e styIn ter n a tio n a l, H u m a n R ig h ts W a tch a n d th e U N H ig h C o m m iss io n o n H u m a n R ig h ts, a ll t e n d in g to sh o w that co n d it ion s in S ri L an k a w ere d ifficu lt . T h e a rt icl es a lso sh o w that the S ri L ankan gove rnm entcont i nues t o vi ew the LT T E as a pot ent i al thr eatand thatr ece nt i nci dent s of vi ol ence agai ns tT ami l s have be en document ed. Pet i t i onercont ends thatt he art i cl es s how thati f s he r eturns t o Sr i L anka, s he w i l l fac e per s ecut i on beca us e of he r-5-

fai l ed as y l um bi ds , and bec aus e the Sr i L ankan gove rnm entw i l l m i s t akenl ybel i eve that sh e h a s b e e n su p p o rtin g th e L T T E a b ro a d b ya ss o c iatin g w ith th e T a m il sc h o o l in C a n a d a . T he B I A deni ed herm ot i on i n N ovember2007 beca us e “[ t ] he mat er i al thatthe r es pondent s s ubm i ti s cumul at i ve conc erni ng condi t i ons i n Sr i L anka” and “much of the i nfo rm at i on cou l d h ave b een p res ented atthe fo rm er heari ng . ” (A . at2. ) Th e B IA al so fo u n d that an yinf

o rm ati o n that m igh t be c o n side red n ew w as n o t m aterial b ec au se th ere i s no evi dence thatPet i t i oner ’ s as s oci at i on atthe s chool w oul d be ca us e forr eper cus s i on, and “ther e i s no demonstr at i on thatthe Sr i L ankan gove rnm enti s aw ar e of s uch empl oym ent . ” (Id .) P e titio n e r p e titio n s f o r r e v ie w o f

th a t o rd e r a s w e ll. I I . D i s cus s i on A. I ni t i al A ppl i cat i on A n ali en m ayq u ali fyfo r asy lum if h e o r she ca n d em o n str ate p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w e l l - f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i ty, m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 299 F. 3d 266, 271- 72 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W i thhol di ng of r emoval r equi r es the appl i cantt o es t abl i s h a c le a r p ro b a b ility o f

p e rs e c u tio n in th e p ro p o s e d c o u n tr yo f d e p o rt a tio n . G abuni

ya v. A t t or ney G ener al , 463 F. 3d 316, 320- 21 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T o obt ai n r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, an appl i cantm us tdemonstr at e thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan not th a t h e o r s h e w ill b e to rt u re d in th e p ro p o s e d c o u n tr yo f d e p o rt a tio n . O bal e v. A t t or ney-6-

G ener al , 4 5 3 F . 3 d 1 5 1 , 1 6 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . Ea c h b a s i s f o rr e l i e f r e q u i r e s , a tmi n i mu m, c re d ib le te s tim o n y . See G ao , 299 F. 3d at272. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ). W e re v iew a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i ons fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , C h e n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2004) , w hi ch i s “extr emel ydefe r ent i al , s ett i ng a hi gh hur dl e byperm i t t i ng the r ever s al of f a c tu a l f in d in g s o n lyw h e n th e re c o rd e v id e n c e w o u ld c o m p e l a r e a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r to m ake a contr arydet erm i nat i on, ” id . a t 2 2 3 . W e m a yn o t d istu rb a c re d ib ili ty d e te rm in a tio n u n le s s n o re a s o n a b le p e rs o n w o u ld h a v e f o u n d th e a p p lic a n t in c re d ib le . I d. a t 2 2 2 . P e t i t i o n e rf

a u l t s th e I J f

o rp l a c i n g t o o m u c h e m p h a s i s o n h e ra i rp o r ti n t e r v i e w . We h a v e e x p re s s e d s k e p tic is m o v e r t h e re lia b ility o f a irp o rt in te rv ie w s , s ee, e. g. , D i a v. A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 228, 257 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , butw e have found thattheym ays erve as t he bas i s foran adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on w hen the appl i cantcl ear l yunder s t ood t he q u e s tio n s p o s e d a n d h e r a n s w e rs w e n t to th e h e a rt o f h e r c la im . C hen , 376 F. 3d at224. H e re , the a irp o rt in ter v iew w a s c o n d u c ted w ith th e a ss ista n c e o f a T a m il i nt erpr et er , Pet i t i onerunder s t ood the ques t i ons , and s he di d notchal l enge the i nt ervi ew er ' s conductoranyof herow n r es pons es . T he r ecor d r evea l s keydi s cr epanc i es thatgo t o the hea r tof hercl ai m . M os tnot abl y , s he ci t ed herfea rof bom bi ng and s hel l i ng atthe ai rpor ti nt ervi ew , buthers ubs equentas y l um appl i cat i on w as bas ed on a f earof p e rs o n a l v io le n c e .-7-

Pet i t i oner ’ s s t at ementabouthavi ng j us ttr avel ed w i th herhus band and s on fr om Sr i L anka w as a l i e, pur e and s i m pl e. Purpor t ed che s tpai n does notexpl ai n how , i n one ver s i on of eve nt s , s he ca m e di r ect l yfr om Sr i L anka w i th herhus band and s on, fea r i ng b o m b in g a n d sh e lli n g , an d in th e o th e r v e rsio n , sh e e x p e rie n c e d in d iv id u a l p e rse c u tio n in Sr i L anka be for e movi ng t o G erm any , w her e s he metherhus band, had a ba byand then tr avel ed t o the U ni t ed St at es . Pet i t i oner ’ s onl yexpl anat i on i s that , atthe t i m e of the ai rporti nterview , she i ntended t o ap plyfor asy l um i n C anad a and no tthe U nit ed S t at es, and “f orher , the enc ount ers he had w i th U . S. ai rpor toffi ci al s w as j us tt o getoutof c u sto d ya n d p ro c e e d to C a n a d a .” (P e tit io n e r’s B r. at 3 4 .) W e h a v e n e v e r h e ld th a t th is is a n a c c e p tab le e x c u se f

o r d ish o n e sty , an d w e d e c lin e to d o so n o w ; in d e e d , this e x p lan a tio n sh o w s p re c ise lyw h yth e IJ’ s c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n m u st s tan d . If , d e sp ite s peci fi c i ns truct i ons aboutthe i m por t ance of t el l i ng the truth, Pet i t i onerw as w i l l i ng t o s ay w h a tev e r sh e n e e d e d to sa yin o rd e r “ to g e t o u t o f c u sto d y ,” th e n p re su m a b lysh e w o u ld a ls o s a yw h a te v e r s h e n e e d e d to s a yn o w in o rd e r t o g a in a s y lu m . B . T he M ot i on t o R eopen Pet i t i oners ubm i t t ed a mot i on t o r eopen t o the B I A , and off er ed new s art i cl es about the ongoi ng ci vi l unr es ti n Sr i L anka, w hi ch s how ed thatT ami l s and Tam i l ar eas have been t ar get ed i n i s ol at ed i nci dent s of vi ol ence and bombi ng. O ne art i cl e conc erned ei ght T ami l s w ho r ece nt l yw entm i s s i ng, and anotherw as abouta Sr i L ankan man w ho w as found dea d ata Sr i L ankan a i rpor taft erthe U ni t ed K i ngdom deport ed hi m . Pet i t i oner-8-

al s o s ubm i t t ed art i cl es aboutnegat i ve Sr i L ankan s ent i m entt ow ar d W es t ern char i t i es t hat th e S ri L a n k a n g o v e rn m e n t m a yp e rc e iv e a s p ro -L T T E . W e r evi ew the B I A ' s deni al of Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen f orabus e of d is c re tio n . S e e S e v o ia n v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). U n d e r th is d e f e re n tial sta n d a rd , w e m u st u p h o ld th e B IA ' s d e c isio n u n les s it is “ a rb itrar y , irratio n a l, orcontr aryt o l aw . ” Id . a t1 7 4 ( q u o t a t i o n ma r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) . Un d e r8 C. F . R § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(1 ), th e B IA h a s d isc re tio n to re o p e n p ro c e e d in g s if th e m o v a n t sta tes n e w f a c ts to b e p ro v e d a t a h e a ri n g th a t a re s u p p o rt e d b ya f f id a v its o r o th e r e v id e n tia ry m a te ri a l. T h a t n e w e v id e n c e m u s t b e m a te ri a l a n d h a v e b e e n u n a v a ila b le a t th e f o rm e r h e a ri n g . Id . T he evi dence of unr es tand tr oubl e forT ami l s i s notnew . Si m i l arevi dence w as s ubm i t t ed t o the I J . M or eover , the evi dence thatT ami l s ar e t ar get ed fors uppor t i ng the L T T E a b ro a d is n o t m a ter ial b e c a u se P e tit io n e r h a s n o t sh o w n h o w h e r in v o lv e m e n t w ith the s ch o o l spe ll s tr o u b le fo r he r i n S ri L an k a, i . e., sh e h as n o t cred iblysh o w n that the S ri L a n k a n g o v e rn m e n t e v e n k n o w s a b o u t h e r a s s o c ia tio n w ith th e s c h o o l. E ven i f the purpor t edl ynew i nform at i on w as m at er i al , s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s concl us i on thatPet i t i onercoul d notes t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e for re lief. T o th e e x ten t P e tit io n e r c a n b e f o u n d c re d ib le in c laim in g th a t sh e su b jec tiv e ly fe ars retu rnin g to S ri L an k a, th e inf o rm ati o n n o w su b m itted d o es n o t est ab li sh a “ p att ern orpr act i ce” i n Sr i L anka of per s ecut i on of Tam i l s orof Sr i L ankans r eturni ng fr om ab roa d af

ter failed a sy lum ap p li ca ti o n s in o ther c o u n tr ies. T h e q u esti o n o f w h ethe r aW e r ej ectPet i t i oner ’ s ar gum ent s as t o corr obor at i on evi dence and the s urplace 2 c la im w ith o u t f

u rt h e r d is c u s s io n . -9- “patt ern orpr act i ce” exi s t s i s a ques t i on of fa ctthatm us tbe det erm i ned bas ed on the in d iv id u a l r e c o rd b e f

o re th e c o u rt . S e e S e v o ia n v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 3 -74 (3d C ir . 2002) . W e have hel d that“t o cons t i tut e a ‘ patt ern orpr act i ce, ’ the per s ecut i on of the gr oup m us tbe ‘ s y s t emi c, pervas i ve, oror gani zed. ’ ” L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 396 F. 3d 530, 537 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e B IA n o ted th a t th e IJ h a d re v iew e d th e e v id e n c e , inc lu d in g th e S tate D epart m ent ’ s C ountryR eport s , and corr ect l yfound thatthe condi t i ons i n Sr i L anka do n o t con sti tute a “ p att ern o r pra cti ce ” o f p erse cu ti o n o f T am il s. T h ese fin d ing s are s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . In lig h t o f

th e a b o v e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to re o p e n . P e tit io n e r’s a rg u m e n t th a t a f a ilu re to re o p e n w o u ld a m o u n t to a d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n lac k s m e rit. 2 I I I . C oncl usi on W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n s f o r r e v ie w .