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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 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

14 Chandrasena Sudusinghe, 

15 Petitioner,

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

24
2

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

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