Christopher F. Droney, Judge of the United States * District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

1 03-2814-pr, 08-6044-ag Sudusinghe v. Holder



### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



# SUM MARY ORDE R

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT

. C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
O N O RA FTER J

ANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 3 2 .1 AN D T H I S C OURT ’ S LOCAL R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL

.



### 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

### 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

### 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 

### 4 New York, on the 10 day of March, two thousand ten. th 

### 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 

### 7 Chief Judge, 

### 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 

### 9 Senior Circuit Judge, 

### 10 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, * 

### 11 District Judge. 

### 12 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X Chandrasena Sudusinghe, 

### 14 Petitioner, 

### 15 16 17 -v.- 03-2814-pr, 

### 18 08-6044-ag 

### 19 20 Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney 

### 21 General, 

### 22 Respondent. 

### 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

### 242

APPEARING FOR PETITIONER: GLENN L. FORMICA, Formica, P.C., 

### 1 2 New Haven, CT. 

### 3 4 APPEARING FOR RESPONDENT: SUE CHEN, Special Assistant 

### 5 United States Attorney (Neil M. 

### 6 Corwin, Assistant United States 

### 7 Attorney, of counsel), for Lev. 

### 8 L. Dassin, Acting United States 

### 9 Attorney for the Southern 

### 10 District of New York, New York, 

### 11 NY. 

### 12 13 Consolidated petitions for review of orders of the 

### 14 Board of Immigration Appeals. 

### 15 16 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 

### 17 AND DECREED that the petitions for review be DENIED

. 

### 18 19 Chandrasena Sudusinghe petitions for review of two 

### 20 orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), one 

### 21 entered September 18, 2002 summarily affirming an order of 

### 22 removal, and the other entered June 18, 2008 denying his 

### 23 motion to reopen. Sudusinghe, a Sri Lankan, alleges 

### 24 persecution by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (“JVP”) on 

### 25 account of his support for the United National Party 

### 26 (“UNP”), and seeks asylum. We assume familiarity with the 

### 27 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 

### 28 presented for review. 

### 29 30 I. Petition for Review of Order of Removal (Docket No. 03- 

### 31 2814)



### 32 When considering a petition to review an order of 

### 33 removal, we review legal conclusions and applications of law 

### 34 de novo, and findings of fact under the substantial evidence 

### 35 standard. Mendis v. Filip, 554 F.3d 335, 338 (2d Cir. 

### 36 2009). Under the substantial evidence standard, a finding 

### 37 of fact is reversible only if “any reasonable adjudicator 

### 38 would be compelled to conclude” that the finding was 

### 39 erroneous. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Gao v. Board 

### 40 of Immigration Appeals, 482 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir. 2007). 

### 41 “Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the [Immigration 

### 42 Judge’s (“IJ”)] decision[,] we review the decision of the IJ 

### 43 directly.” Pavlova v. I.N.S., 441 F.3d 82, 87 (2d Cir. 

### 44 2006).3 

### 1 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that any 

### 2 alleged persecution was not “on account of” Sudusinghe’s 

### 3 support for the UNP. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Sudusinghe 

### 4 offered little, if any, evidence suggesting that his alleged 

### 5 persecution was politically motivated. The evidence that 

### 6 was offered suggests instead that the JVP targeted 

### 7 Sudusinghe initially because he worked for a bank and could 

### 8 cash a fraudulent check. Thereafter, he was threatened 

### 9 because he alerted the police. The only evidence suggesting 

### 10 a political motive is Jamis’s threat to “get ‘The UNP 

### 11 Ba[stard]’” (meaning Sudusinghe). But the suggestion is 

### 12 weak at best--the UNP reference seems more epithet than 

### 13 material fact--and Sudusinghe himself diminished its value 

### 14 by testifying that Jamis made the threat because “he 

### 15 couldn’t get money from me” and because “I told the police 

### 16 and I trapped him and I caught him and put him in the jail.” 

### 17 On this record, the IJ was warranted in finding that 

### 18 Sudusinghe’s political opinions were not a “central reason” 

### 19 for his alleged persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). 

### 20 This finding renders Sudusinghe ineligible for asylum and is 

### 21 accordingly sufficient to support the order of removal, and 

### 22 we therefore need not reach Sudusinghe’s remaining 

### 23 assignments of error to it.



### 24 II. Petition for Review of Order Denying Motion to Reopen 

### 25 (Docket No. 08-6044-ag)



### 26 We review orders denying motions to reopen for abuse of 

### 27 discretion, Ali v. Gonzalez, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 

### 28 2006) (per curiam); and we find none here. Denial of 

### 29 Sudusinghe’s untimely motion to reopen was warranted because 

### 30 none of “the proffered new evidence would likely alter the 

### 31 result” of his asylum proceedings. Shao v. Mukasey, 546 

### 32 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008). The proffered evidence does 

### 33 nothing to remedy the deficiency noted above: that 

### 34 Sudusinghe is ineligible for asylum because he has offered 

### 35 insufficient evidence of persecution “on account of” his 

### 36 political opinion. Having failed to establish a prima facie 

### 37 case of asylum eligibility, he is not entitled to reopening. 

### 38 Id.



### 39 Finding no merit in Sudusinghe’s remaining arguments, 

### 40 we hereby DENY his petitions for review. 

### 41 42 FOR THE COURT: 

### 43 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 

### 44 45