H ono rabl e Jo hn W
. Darr ah, Uni t ed S t at es Dis t ri c tJ udge f or  the Northe rnDis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 08

- 2644 & 08

- 3777 S UGA NT HAN P AT HMAKANT HAN, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, D ef endant-Appellant.

Peti tionfor Revi ewof anOr de rof the B o ard of Immigration App eals

.

No . A 099 031 921
A RG UE D M AR CH 29, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 16, 2010

Befo re C UD AH Y an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges , a nd D ARRAH, D istrict Judge.  C UDAH Y, C ircu it Judge. A s fi gh t in g rag ed betw een Sri Lankan secur i ty f or ces and the separ ati st Tam il Tige rs , Su ga n th an P at h m ak an th an (P et itio n er ) fou n d h im se lf ca ug hti n the middl e. Pe ti ti one r i s ane thni c Ta m i lwho2 N os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 l i ved i n an ar ea ofS riLanka contr ol l ed by the Ti ger s. A l though he w as not perso nal l y invol ved w i th the Ti ger s, he was s ubj ect to re pea te d s to ps an d que st i o ni ngb y the Sr iLankan f or ces. Between 2002 and 2005 , h e w as subj e c t e d t o s o me 1 5 a r r e s t s , a ft e r wh i c h he wa s de t ai ne d, que st i o ne d a nd pr o m ptly re l ea se d e ac h t i m e. At o ne p oint, Pe titi one r traveled to Ind ia a nd return ed to Sri L a n k a wi t ho u tfl e e i n go r s e e k i n ga s y l u m. S o me t i me afterthatr etur n, tho ugh, he was ar re ste d and th re ate ned w i th death. H e was r el eas ed w i thout harm after10 hour s. Pe t i t i o ne rs ub s e qu e nt l y fl e d S r iLa nk a a nd , u s i ngf a l se I nd i an i denti fi cati on, bo ar ded a pla ne th at ar ri ved at Ch i cago ’ s O’ H ar e Air porto n A ugust 2 4, 20 07. P et iti onerappli ed f oras yl um , withhol ding ofr em ova l and rel i efunder the U ni ted N ati ons Conventi on A gainst Torture ( CA T). A fteral lthr ee w er e deni ed by the I m m i gr atio n J u d ge (IJ) an d th e B oa rd of Im m igr at ion A p p ea ls ( B I A) , h e mo v e d t o r e o pe n b a s e d o n c h a n g e d c i r c u msta nces i n Sr iLanka (n am el y the r epor ted br eak dow n of th e ce as e- fi r e be twe enS r iLa nk ans ecu rityf o r ce s an d the Ta mi lr e b e l s )
. T he mo t i o n t o r e o pe n wa s de ni e d. P at h m ak an th an n ow p et itio n s f o r rev iew of th es e d ec isi ons. N o twi th st an di ngthe m an y di ffi cul t e xpe r i en ce s th athe en dur ed, Pe ti ti o ne r ha s no t sh o wn th at he ha d b ee n the su bj ec t o fpe r se cut i o n. F ur th er, de spi te the po o r humanr i g h t s c o n d i t i o n s i n Sr iL a n k a , P e t i t i o n e r h a s n o ts h o wn th athe f ac es a well

- f o unde d fea r o ffutur e per se cut i o n . M o re ov er , th e B IA d id n otab u se its d isc re tio n in den y i nghi s m o ti on t o r eo pen . F o r the se r ea so ns , a ndN os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 3 the o nes that fol l ow, w e deny the c onso l i dated peti ti on f o r r e v i e w.

I . B AC KGR OUND Pe titi one r i s a n ethn ic Tam ilfrom the N orthe rn Pro vi nce o fS riLanka who i s in hi s l ate 20 s. S i nce he w as a ch i l d, hi s ho m el an d ha s be en th e sc en e o f an o fte nbr ut ala r m ed co nfl i ctb etwee n the S riLa nk ang o ve r nm en t and the L iberation T igers ofthe T am ilEe lam ( L T T E ), a re belgr oup that re gul ar l y c om m i tte d atr oci ti es, wh i ch re su l ted i n i ts bei ng desi gnate d a te rr or i st or gani zati on by the U. S. S tat e Depart m ent. As a y o ung, e thni c T am i lmal e, Pe ti ti o ne r was the su bj ect of at ten tion, stop s and qu estioning by the Sri L a n kan f orces. In 19 97, Petitioner and his pare nt s w ere d etaine d at a refu g e e c am p f or f ou r m ont hs and w ere re l eas ed onl y a fterh i s un cl e pos ted a bond. Between 2002 a nd 2 0 0 5 , he was a r r e s t e d a nd de t a i ne d d ur i ngr o un d- up s of T am ils in h is a re a o ve r 15 tim es . In ea c h of th es e in c id en ts , th e p olic e b ot h qu es tio n ed h im an d p r e se n te d h im to mask ed i nf o r m an ts i n o r dert o de te r m i ne whetherhe w as a Ti germ i l i tant orsupporte r. Each ti m e they r el eas ed hi m a fte r a s hor t dete nti on. H e was neve r beat en o r ph y s i c a l l y i nj ur e d. I n 200 5, wh en Pet i ti onerbeg an w or ki ng f orthe Germ an N GO, Sew al an k a, a s a m o ni to r i ngo ffi ce r o ve r se eing 50 vi l l age s, he t ra vel ed extens i vel y in the Tam i l

- contr ol l ed r eg i o n. He was s to pped bys ec ur i tyforces dai l y a nd detai ned fo r up to two hour s whil e he assu re d t h em that4 N os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 he was no t a su ppo r te r or m embe r o fthe LTTE. In the c ou rs e o fhi s duti es w i th the N GO , Peti ti onertr avel ed to I ndi a f o r t rai ni ng . Indi a admi tt ed hi m b as ed o n a g r o up v i s a a n d S r iL a nk a r ea dmi t t e d h i m b a s e d o n h i s o wn i denti fi cati on. W hi l e in I nd i a, Peti ti onerdi d n ot see k o r f or m al l y i nquir e about asy l um . I n A ugust 2 006, Peti ti oner qui t th e N GO due t o ha r as smenta nd th reats fr o m the auth o r i t i e s a nd p e r s o na lfe a r s f o r h i s s a fe t y . He b ega n w or ki ng f orhi s f ather ’ s co nstr ucti on business. I n 200 7, the Sr iLankan cr i m i nal

- i nvest i gat i on d ep ar tm en t ar r es te d Pe ti ti o ne r, t o o khi m i nt o c us to dy an d b ro u gh t h im to a c am p . T h er e th ey in te rro ga te d h im ag ain ab o uthi s t i e s t o th e L T T E a n d th r e a t e n e d t o k i l lh i m. Pe ti ti o ne r s ta te d tha t h e be l i ev es he was no t k i l l ed atthe ti m e because hi s f am i l y knew o f hi s ar re st an d p lea d ed f orhi s r el eas e. I n Aug us t 20 07, Pe ti ti o ne r o btain ed f al se Indi ando cum en ta ti o n a nd fl ed S r iLa nk a via M al ay si a an d J apa n, ar ri vi ng atChica go’ s O’ H ar e Air port
. Underthe I m m i g r at i o n a nd N ati o na l i tyAct( I N A), the D e p ar tm en t o f H om ela n d Sec u rit y (D H S) c h ar ge d P et iti onerwith r em ova lbas ed o n hi s inadm i ssibi l i ty und er Se cti on 212( a) ( 6) ( C)( i ) ( enter i ng the U ni ted St ate s thro ugh fra ud o r m i sr epre se n tat i on o fm ate ri alf act) and Se cti on 212(a)(7)( A )( i) (I ) (an im m igran t not in p ossess ion of a val i d vi sa)
. 8 U
. S.C . § 1182. Ini ti al l y Pe ti ti onerco nceded to hi s r em ovabi l i ty on bo th char ge s, but w as l ate r al l owed to withdraw his co ncessi on o fthe fra ud char ge. Peti ti oner i m m edi ate l y r equeste d w i thhol ding ofr em ova l pur su an t to S ecti on 2 41 ( b) ( 3) o fthe I N A, a sy l um i n theN os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 5 Uni te d S ta te s pur su an t to S ec ti o n 2 08 o fthe I N A and re l i efunder the CA T
. See 8 U
. S. C. § 1 227; 8 U
. S. C. § 1 158; 8 C. F. R. §§ 12 08. 16 ets eq . On J an ua r y 1 7, 2 00 8, the IJ i ss ue d a de cisi o n de ny i ng Peti ti oner’ s a syl um r equest on the m er i ts. Peti ti oner ti m el y a pp eal ed to the B IA , w hi ch adopted and affi rm ed th e IJ d ec isio n on Ju n e 5 , 200 8. P at h m ak an th an p et iti ons thi s co urt f orr evi ew o ft h at or der. Docke t No. 08

- 2644
. On Septe m ber26 , 20 08, Pet itio n erfi l ed a m oti on wi th th e B I A, r e q u e s t i n g th a t th e B o a r d r e o pen t he ear l i er m att er du e to a change i n countr y con d iti ons. On Oc t o b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , th e B I A d e n i e d th i s r e q u e s t, c i ti ng th e Pe ti ti o ne r ’ s f ai l ur e ei th ert o fi l e wi th i n 9 0 day s o fthe pri or d ec i si on o r to provi de suffi ci ent e vi dence that t h e c irc u m st an c es h ad ch an ge d in Sr i L an ka

. See 8 C. F
. R. § 1 003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i )
. Pathm aka nthan al so p etit i ons f or re vi ew o fthe BIA’s re fusal t o re open the m att er . Docke t N o. 08

- 3777
. W e hav e co nsol i dated both m att er s.

I I . DI S C US S I ON U nd er 8 U
. S. C
. § 1158 , th e A ttorn ey G en eral or Secreta ry o fHomel an d S ec ur i tymay g r an t asyl um t o a l i en s who qu ali fy as r e fu g ees as d efi ne d i n 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101(42)(A ). I n o r dert o qua l i fy a s a r efug ee , a n ali enne eds t o de m o nstr ate two thi ngs. Fi rs t, he m u st show that he has be en the vi c t i m o fp a s tp e r s e c ut i o n o r h a s a we l l

- f o un de d f ear offuture perse cuti on. § 1101 ( 42)(A ). S eco nd , he m ust sh o w tha t th e per se cut i o n i s on ac co unto fr ac e, r el i g i o n, nati onal i ty, m em ber shi p i n a par ti cul arso ci algr oup or6 N os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 p olit ica l op in ion
. Id. U n d er t he CA T, an a l i en m ay be w ithh eld from rem oval i f sh e estab li sh es th at it i s m o re l i kel y than not th at she w oul d be t or ture d i fr em ove d to th e prop osed cou nt ry of rem oval. 8 C
. F.R. § 1208
. 16(c)(2). The CA T sta nd ar d i s m or e s tr i ngent t han the one f or as ylu m . SeeSe li m i v. Ashc roft, 36 0 F
. 3d 736, 74 1 ( 7th C ir. 2004). W e t re at the B IA ’s ad opti on o fthe IJ deci si on a s a fi n a l a g e n c y d e c i s i o n, a n d we r e v e r s e o n l y i ft he evi dence com pel s a re aso nabl e f act fi nd erto another c on c lu sio n . Urs a c h iv . INS , 296 F.3d 592, 594 (7th Cir. 2002); Pop v. INS , 27 0 F
. 3d 527, 52 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. W here , as here , the BIA m er el y s upp l em ents the IJ ’s opini on, that op in ion, as s u p p lem en te d by th e B oa rd , form s t h e b as is f o r r ev iew
. See M o a b v. G o nz a les , 5 0 0 F
. 3 d 6 5 6 , 6 5 9 ( 7th C ir. 2007). I n con d uc t in g o ur review , w e w il l “inq uire onl y whether th e B oa rd’ s deci si on has the supp or t o f

‘ r ea so nabl e, s ubs ta nt i al, and pr o ba ti ve e vi den ce o n the re cor d c onsi dered as a w h ol e. ’ ” To p t c h e v v . INS , 29 5 F.3d 714 , 720 (7th C ir. 2002) ( quoti ng IN S v . E lia sZacar i as , 50 2 U. S
. 47 8, 48 1 ( 19 92 ) )
. W e r ev i ew the BIA ’s d en ial of t h e m ot ion to reo p en for a b u se of d isc re tio n . INS v. Abu du , 48 5 U.S
. 94, 1 07 (1988)
. W e r evi ew m att er s o f l a w, i nc l ud i ng c l a i ms o f de ni a l o f du e pr o c e s s , de nov o. Sh m yh elskyy v . Go nz a les , 477 F.3d 474 , 482 (7th C ir. 2007).

A. Sub s t ant i al Evi de nc eSu ppor t s theI J ’s D e t e r m i nat i on That Pet i t i one rD i d Not S uf f e rPas tPe rs e cu t i on Pe titi o ne r’s l ife story is com p ell ing. Police and m il itary f or ces have de ta i ned him , i nter ro gat ed hi m and eve nN os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 7

W e note thatthe IJdeem ed Petit ioner’ s tes ti m ony credible. 1 on c e t h re at en ed h im w ith d ea t h w h ile h e w as m er ely t r ying to go abou t his bu siness
. H e tell s of his fam il y’s going into hi d in g a nd gi ving u p their bus iness after a thre at, and ofhi s e nti re f am i l y’ s be i n g detai ned fo r m o n t h s in a re fu ge e c am p , on ly to be rele as ed w h en h is un c l e p o s t e d a b o nd

. 1 A deter m i nati ve defini ti on of“p er secuti on” has pro ven elus i ve. T he r e i s no s ta tu to r y de fi ni ti o n; no r ha s th e B IA p ro vid ed on e. S e e, e . g. , C hen v. G o nz a les , 45 7 F
. 3d 670, 674 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 6). H owever, we have c hara cter i zed perse cuti on a s “ pu ni shm ent o r the i nfl i cti on o fhar m f or p oli tical, rel igi ou s, or other reason s tha t this c o u n try does not re cogni ze as l egi ti m ate
. ” B o ci v. G o nz a les , 47 3 F. 3d 762, 76 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( quoti ng D anda n v . A shcroft, 339 F. 3d 567, 57 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) )
. Per secuti on incl ud es thre ats to l i fe o r fre edom as wellas o th er vio l ence or ab u s e , y e t itn ee d n otn ec es sa rily b e life-t h re at en in g. See Firm a nsja h v . Go nz a les , 424 F.3d 598 , 605 (7th C ir. 2005); Mi t e v v . INS , 6 7 F
. 3d 13 25 , 1 33 0 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0)
. But “[p]ersec ut ion i nv olves harm s tha t go beyon d m ere ha r as sment; i t r es ul ts fr o m m o r e th an si m pl y ‘u npl ea sa nt o r e v e n d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n s i n [ th e a p p l i c a nt ’ s ] h o me c ou n try. ’ ” A hm ed v . Go nz a les , 4 67F
. 3d 66 9, 6 73 ( 7th Cir. 2006 ) ( quoti ng Naki b uka v. Gonzal es , 42 1 F
. 3d 473, 47 6 (7th C ir. 2005)). Pe ti ti o ne r c er ta i nl y s uffer ed ha r as smentwhenthe p olic e ro u n d ed h im u p w ith oth er s s om e 1 5 t im es in 3 y ea r s an d s ubj ec te d hi m t o i nt er r o g at i o n a nd de tentio n. Each tim e, and quite understa nd abl y, he worr i ed that8 N os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 th e m asked i nform an t w hos e j ob it w as to iden tify Ti g err ebe l s woul d m i st ak en l y mar khi m f o r puni sh

men to r wo r s e . Whe n he wa s e m pl o y e d b y the NGO, Pe ti ti o ne r was s to pped al m o stda i ly at ch ec k po i nt s an d q u e s t i o n e d

. T h e s e s t o p s s o me t i me s l a s t e d u p t o t wo hours and were und oubte dlyi nti m i dati ng and har ass i ng. Since w e can not kn ow the full d etails ofPath m akan th an ’s ex p erience s in SriLa nk a, his ow n be ha vior c an be inform at iv e . I t is im p ortan t tha t Pet iti one r l eft the cou nt ry f orInd i a duri ng this ti m e. H i s r etur n to S riLanka fro m I nd i a i s t el l i ng. H ad Peti ti onertr ulybee n i n fearf orh is l i fe , o r o the r wi s e exper i e nc e d p e r s e c ut i o n a tthe h a nd s o fthe S r iLa nk ang o ve r nm en t, the pr osp ect ofr etur ni ng hom e w oul d surel y hav e be en f arfro m at tr acti ve. That he c ho se no t to s ee ka sy l um in I nd i a su g g es ts tha t he no t be ens ubj ec t to pe r se cut i o n a t th at tim e. Hi s be i ng su b j ect to re peated st ops a nd detent i ons w as surely an x iet y-in d u c in g a n d h a r as sin g. B u t itd oe s n otin i ts el fa m o untt o pa stpe r se cut i o n. W e mus tc o ns i de r the ma t t e rof th e de a th thr e a tma de ag ain st Peti ti onerduri ng the Cri m i nalInvest i gat i on D ep ar tm en t (C ID ) d et en tio n, w h i c h oc c u rre d aft er P et iti o ne r ’ s r e t urn fr o m I nd i a . In M a y 2 0 0 7, P a thma k a nt han wa s r i d i n g h i s m o t o rb i k e w h e n th e C I D s t o p p e d h i m, ar r es te d hi m a nd t o o khi m t o a de te nt i on f ac i l i ty
. The CID hel d him atthe cam p f orte n hou rs d u rin g which i t threa tened hi s l i fe. Peti ti oner ’ s dete nti on was w i tne ss ed byhi s f ami l y ’ s ne i g hb o r s, a nd l ater th ate ve ni ng he was r el ea se d whenhi s par en ts c ame t o the c amp an d d em an d ed h is re lea se . Pe tit ion er as se rt s t h at th e p u b lic nature o fhi s a rr estw as the onl y rea son he w as thre ate nedN os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 9

ra th e r tha n a c t ua l l y k i l l e d a t the c a mp. He c o nt e nd s that, ha d hi s par en ts no t ar r i ve d a nd i ns i st ed o n h i s r el ea se , the C ID m ay h av e t a ke n h is life. T w elv e y ea rs ea rlier , Pe titi o ne r ’ s br o th erdi ed, a nd whi l e th e g overn m en t m aint a i ne d tha t he wa s k i l l e d b y a l a nd mi ne , Pe t i ti oner bel i eve d that i t w as a t the hands o fthe gov er nm ent. Once th re at en ed , h e fe ar ed a sim ilar fat e fo r h im se lf. A fte r h is re l eas e fro m the cam p, Peti ti onerhi d fo r thre e m onths. Inres p on se to an ap p ar en tly u n r e l at ed th re at to P et iti oner ’s f ather, hi s f atherhad to cl ose hi s co nstr ucti on bus i ne ss and hi s f ami l y had to pay a br ibe to a pr o - g o ve r nmen tg r o up . Threat s a l one, and part i cul ar l y th re ats o fdeath, can a m o u n t t o p er se c u tio n u n d er ce rt ain circ u m st an c es . In M itev , w e consi dered the possibi l i ty that l i vi n g u n der thre at ofdeath b y s ecr et gov er nm ent for ces m i ght r i se t o th is lev el. M itev , 6 7 F
. 3 d a t 1 3 3 1
. To l i v e , da y af ter d ay , kn ow in g t h at gov er n m e n t f or c es m igh t s ec re tly ar re st and execute you i s its elf a for m o fm entalangui sh that can co nsti tute perse cuti on. Yet, l ogi c di ctat es that f o r a n un ful fi l l ed th r ea t to r i se t o the l ev elo fpe r se cut i o n, i t m ust be so m ethi ng ext ra or dinar i l y o m i nou s. I t ca nnot si m ply b e a thr eato fdeath that, i n conte xt, i s j ust a m at te r o fwor ds. In M itev , w h ile w e no ted the pote nti al f o r th r e a t
-b a s e d p e r s e c u t i o n b y th e s e c r e tp o l i ce , we d e n i e d th e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s a p p e a lb e c a u s e h i s th r e a t s c a me fro m co - w or ker s unhapp y with hi s pol i ti calact i vi sm , not th e g ov er n m en t it se lf. Id. at13 28- 29. Even thr ea ts fro m pol i ce di d not a m ount to past per secuti on wh en the y w er e no t a cted o n and, i n conte xt, were vi ew ed as l ess t h a n lik ely to be fu lfilled

. B o y k o v v . INS , 1 0 9 F
. 3 d 4 1 3 , 4 1610 N os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 (7th Cir. 1997 ). “In th e vast m aj ority of case s . . . m ere th r ea ts wi l lno t, i n a nd o fthe m se l ve s, c o m pela fi nd i ng ofpast perse cuti on. ” Id. Peti ti onerhas not prese nted evi d en ce that he suffer ed pastp e r s e c ut i o n du e t o the thr e a ta l o ne . We no t e tha t he to ok the th reat ser i ousl y, bo th be cause he sa ys that he di d ( an d the IJ f o und h i m c r edibl e) a nd b ec au se he we n t i n t o h i d i n g f o r th r e e mo n th s a ft e r i t
. Y e t, i ft he go ve rn m en t w a n t e d t o kill P et itio n er , i t s ee m s u n like ly that it wo ul d ha ve r el ea se d hi m l at ertha t ev en i nga t th e in sis te n c e of h is p ar en ts . P et itio n er c on te n d s th at t h e C ID d id n ot exe cu te him i n th e cam p becau se th ere w ere w i tness es to hi s arre st. W e ca nnot know the i nner w or kin gs o fth e Sr i L an ka n C ID or w h et h er it w ou ld t r u l y b e mo t i v a t e d t o s p a r e a l i fe u n d e r th e s e c i r c u mstan ces, y e t i t seem s logi cal that, even i f th e pre sen ce of a w itness thwarte d the k i l l i ng, the CID would not re l eas e so m eo ne the y want ed dea d. O ne woul d e xpe cttha t th e pol i c e w oul d hol d such a per son pend i ng so m e s or t o f charg e o r i nvest i gat i on. In say ing thi s, we do not saythatthe thre at ag ai nst Pe ti ti onerwas not ser i ous, fr i g h t e n i n g o r r e a l

. Ne v e r th e l e s s , g i v e n th e r e c o r d , t he IJ’s d et er m in at ion th at P at h m ak an th an d id n otex p er ien c e p as t p er se c u tio n is su p p or te d by su b st an tia l ev id e n c e . T h e c o n t e x to fth e s i n g l e d e a th th r e a tt o wh i c h he w as subj ec t is notso se ver e that no r eas onabl e per son co ul d f ai lt o fi nd tha t he was su bj ectt o pe r se cut i o n. To ptc hev , 29 5 F
. 3d at 720.N os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 11 B. Sub s t ant i al Evi de nc eSu ppo rt s theI J ’s D e t e r m i nat i on That Pet i t i one rD oe s NotHavea We l l

- Fou nde d Fe arof Fut urePe rs e cu t i on Past perse cuti on l eads t o a r ebuttabl e pr es u m p tio n of fu tu re p er se c u tio n . B egz a t o w s k iv . INS , 27 8 F
. 3d 6 65, 66 9 (7t h C i r . 2 00 2). Inth e p re se n t c as e, th ou gh , w h er e P et itio n er h as n otes ta b l i s h e d p as t p er se c u tio n, he m ay st ill demons tr at e a w el l

- f o unde d fea r o ffutur e per se cut i o n. Because the IJ f ound him to be credib l e, w e t ake Peti ti oner at hi s word thathe ha s a subj ecti ve fearo fbeing per secuted upon hi s r etur n to S riLanka. But a s ubj ecti ve fear i s not enough i n i tse l f; ra ther, an asy l um se ek er m ust al so dem onst ra te that the fearo ffuture perse cuti on is ob j ec tiv ely rea so n ab le. See A yele v . H o lder, 56 4 F
. 3d 862, 868 (7th C ir. 2009). W e a ddr es s two po ss ibl e i te r at i o ns o ffutur e per se cutio n . First, eve n th ou g h livin g u n d er th e d ea th th re at d id not am ount t o past per secuti on, we w i l lco nsi der whether th e t h r ea t is su fficie n tly gra ve to giv e ris e t o a w ellfou n d ed fea r of fu tu re p er se c u tio n . S ec on d , w e w ill consi der pet i tion er ’ s cl ai m s o fper secuti on in gene ra l aga i nst y oung Tam i lm al es fro m the N orther n Pro vi nce ofS riLanka. T ak in g t h e fo rm er qu e s t i o n fir st, w e a gr ee w ith th e IJ that the s i ngl e death thr eatm ade to to Pathm ak anthan d oe s n otren d er h is fe ar of fu tu re p er se c u tio n ob j ec tiv ely r e a s o nab l e . Whi l e a nythr eato fde a th i s s e r i o us , we do n otbe liev e t h at th is p ar tic u lar th re at cr ea te s a w ellf ounded fearo ffuture perse cuti on be cause ( 1) the th reat was a n i so lated inci den t, no t par t o fa s er i es o fo ng o i ng12 N os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 th r ea ts , ( 2) the Pe ti ti o ne r was r el ea se d withi n h o ur s an d w i thout havi ng suffer ed any physi calhar m , and (to a l ess erdegr ee) ( 3) to the extent the threa t m ay have been b as ed on P et itio n er ’s p er c eiv ed m em b er sh ip in t h e T am il Tig er s, thatgr oup’s m i l i tar y defeatatthe hand s o f th e g o ve r nm en t i n 2 00 9 co ul d c o nc ei vabl y o bvi ate the m oti vati on that underl ay the s i ngle th re at to w hi ch P at h m ak an th an w as su bj ec t. See U
. S. S TATE D EP ’ T, 2009 C O UN TRY R EP OR T SON H UMAN R IGH TS P RACTI CES : S RI L ANKA ( noti ng that the go ver nm ent decl ar ed vi cto ryo ver th e T ige rs on M ay 18 , 200 9); B alogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F. 3d 492, 50 6- 07 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( hol ding that w e m ay tak e j ud i ci alnot i ce o fco untry condi ti ons docum ented in State D ep artm en t repo rts). Peti ti onerco ntends thatthe Sr iLankan g ove rnm ent has ano ng o i ngpa tt ern a nd pr ac ti ce o fpers ec ut i ngy o ung T a mi l ma l e s fr o m th e No r th e r n P r o v i n c e a n d th a t he w ou ld be su bj ec t t o th is p er se c u tio n as a m e m b e r o f th is ethni c g ro up . W e a cknowle dge thatper secuti on ca n be di r ec te d at an en ti r e subs et o f a po pul ati on, a nd as ylu m ca n b e g ra n te d on su c h a b as is. See 8 C. F
. R. § 20 8. 13 ( b) ( 2) ( i i i )
. Ye t, thi s pr o vi si o n i s ve r y l i m i te d a nd w e h ol d such cl ai m s t o a hi gh st andard. “Ther e m ust be a ‘s ys te m at ic, p er va siv e, or o rg an ize d ’ effo rtto kill, i m pri son, o r seve re l y inj ure m em ber s o fthe protec ted gr oup, and t h is eff or t m ust be per petra ted o r tol er ate d by sta te acto rs . ” M itreva v. G o nz a les , 41 7 F
. 3d 761, 76 5 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 05 ); see also M itev , 67 F
. 3d at 13 30 ( “A m ore gen erou s interp retation of ‘ p ersecu tion’ w ou ld ‘qu ali fy the e nti re popula ti on o fm any war- torn nati ons f oras yl um ’ a nd thus make c o ng r es si o na l l y - i m po se d l i m i ta ti o nsN os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 13

In 2009 we m ade a d ete rm inat ion that the p ract ic es ofthe Sri 2 Lanka n go ver nm en tdi d notr i s e t o a pat t er n or p rac t i c e of p er se cu tio n o f eth n ic T a m ils

. K rishn apil l aiv. Holder, 563 F. 3d 606 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09 )
. Pe t i t i one r i n thi s c as e has r el i ed onm uc h o fthe s am e bac kgr ound i nf or m at i on. Al thoughc i rc um s t ance s f or m a l e T am ils i n S ri L an k a m ay ha v e ch an g ed since th e T ige rs’ m i l i t ar y de fea t, an y argu m en tas to ch ang ed co unt ry c ondi t i ons (c on tin u ed

... ) on i m m i gr ati on vi rtual l y m ea n i ngl ess . ” Id. ( quo ting S i v a a i n k a r a n v . INS , 972 F.2d 161 , 165 (7th C ir. 1992)). “Consequentl y, co nd iti ons ofpol i ti calupheavalwh i ch affec t th e po pul ac e as a who l e o r in la r g e par t ar e g en er ally ins u fficie n t t o e st ab lish eligib ility for a sy lu m .” Si vaai nkaran , 97 2 F.2d at16 5; see also Ka ha rud in v . Go nz a les , 500 F.3d 619, 623-25 (7th Cir. 2007). Peti ti onerh as p re sente d anecdotalev i dence ofhar ass m ent by Sr i Lankan gov er nm ent author i ti es an d o ther ev id en c e su c h as U .S. St at e D ep ar tm en t rep or t s . T h is ev idence dem onst ra tes a hars h, bat tl e- torn envi ro nm ent, in w hich th e T am il s as a group are often i ll -treated

. N everth el es s, we ag r ee wi ththe IJ tha t m an y of th e det en ti ons and i nter ro gat i ons d escr ibed by Pathm aka nthan m ayha ve b ee n n ec es sa r y e vi l s f o r a g o ve r nm en t en t r e nc he d in a fe r o c i o us c i v i lwa r wi th a ter ro r i s tg r o up . A nd despi te the f act th at the S tat e Depart m ent’ s 2 009 re p or t o n Sri L an ka p ain ts a gr im p i c t u re for T am ils g en er al l y, i t do es no t ne ce ss ar i l y de m o ns trate tha t th e Sr iLankan g ove rnm ent per secute s y ou ng Tam i lm al es. W ha t Pe ti tio ne r ha s demons tr at ed do es no t r i se t o the hi gh st andard w e s et f orco nsi deri ng ent i re ethnici ti es ( or e v e n l a r g e s u b s e t s o fth e m) e l i g ib l e f o r b l a n k e ta s y l u m. 214 N os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777

(
. . . c o ntinu e d) s h o u l d b e p r e s e n t e d t o th e B I A a tth e fi r s ti ns t a n c e . 8 C
. F
. R. § 10 0 3 .2(c )(3)(ii ). T hu s, su bsta nt ialevide n c e su p p orts the BIA and IJ’ s fi ndi ngtha t Pe ti ti o ne r ha s no t es tabl i sh ed pas t per se cutio n or a w ell-fo u n d ed fea r of fu tu re p er se c u tio n .
C. Pet i t i one rIs N otE nt i t l e d to Rel i e f U nde rtheConve nt i on A ga inst To rture The C AT s t a n d a r d p r e s e n t s a h i g h e r th r e s h o l d th a n t he as y l u m st an d ar d

. Sel im i v. Ashcroft, 36 0 F
. 3d 736, 74 1 ( 7th Cir
. 20 04)
. Because Peti ti onerhas not m et the b u rd en to est abl ish a sy l um , he ha s no t m et the b urden f or p ro te c tio n u n d er th e C A T
. See, e.g
. , Ishiti a q v. Ho lder, 57 8 F. 3d 712, 71 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. Peti ti onerco ntends that he wil lbe subj ect to tor ture as a f ai l ed asy l um se eke r r etur ni ngt o Sr iLa nk a, e ve n i fhe ha s no t sh o wn a pattern of tor ture that w oul d o ther w i se aff ord p ro tecti o n un derthe CAT. Nev er th el es s, he h as no t m etthe burde n o f s ho wi ng tha t he i s mor e l i k e l y tha n no t to be tor ture d up on hi s r etur n beca use o fhi s s tatus as a f ai l ed as y l um s ee k er, o r f o ra nyo th err ea so n.

D. The BIA D i d Not Den y Pe t i t i one rD uePr oc e s s of La w Peti ti onercl ai m s tha t th e BI A co nfuse d his cas e with a n o t h e r a n d th e r e f o r e d e n i e d h i m d u e p r o c e s s o fl a w. The r e ar e a few i ns ta nc es wher e th e BIA fu m bl ed th e l anguage , m ostnot abl y c al l i n g Peti ti oner ’ s r equest an
“ a dj us t men t o f s t a t us ” r a the r tha n “ wi thh o l di ng o fr e-N os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 15

m ov al.” W h ile th is ra ise s t h e p os sib ility o f co n fu sio n, a re ading of the enti re deci si on m ake s i t apparen t t hat th is w as a se m an tic e r r or an d th at th e B IA d id fu lly consi der Pe ti ti oner ’ s uni que ci rcum stances. Thi s e rr or w as ther ef or e har m l ess . Li kewis e, the BIA’s f ai l ure to expound o n the f act that Peti ti on er would be a f ai l ed as y l u m s ee ke r re tu rn in g t o Sr i L an ka d oe s n otm ea n it d id n otco n sid er it; d en yin g a sy lu m ob vio u sly res u lts in hi s be i nga f ai l ed as y l um s ee k er. T he BI A di d no t den y Peti ti oner ’ s due- proce ss ri ghts.

E. The BIA D id Not Abuseits D is cret ion in D enying Peti

tio ner’s M o tio n to R eop en On Septem ber26 , 20 08 , Peti ti onerfi l ed a m oti on t o re open with the BI A , ar gui ng that conditi ons i n Sr iLanka ha d cha ng ed i n li gh t of th e breakd ow n of a ce a s e -f ire b et w e e n t h e T ige rs an d Sri L an ka n gov er n m en t. In su p p ort of his m otion, he sub m it t e d the 20 07 C ou nt ry Rep or t o n H um an Ri ghts Pract i ces, am ongs t m any o ther do cument s. On Oct o be r 2 3, 2 00 8, the BI A deni ed th e m otion o n the g r o unds tha t i t was unt i m ely fi l ed an d th e e vid en c e s u b m itt ed in s u p p or t w as n otsu fficie n tly st r o ngt o s ho w cha ng ed co unt r y c o ndi ti ons f o r the pu rpos e o f8 C.F
. R. § 1003
. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i )
. Pathm aka nthan has a l s o p e t i t i o n e d f o r r e v i e w o fth i s o r d e r o fth e B I A. W e no te the g ove rnm ent’ s Novem ber3 , 20 08, m oti on to d ism iss fo r lac k of ju ris d ict ion atth e o u ts et . Th is m o t io n w il l be d en ied in li gh t of th e Sup rem e C ou rt’s dec i si o n in Kucan a v. Holder, w hi ch hel d that federa l c ou rt s h av e jur i s d i c tio n to rev iew ad m in ist ra tiv e d ec i-16 N os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 si ons to re open r em ova lpro ceedi ngs. 1 30 S. Ct. 82 7, 84 0 (2010). W e r ev i ew Pa th m ak anth an ’ s pet i ti o n fo r r ev i ew o fthe Board’ s deni alo fhi s m ot ion to r eopen forabuse o fdi sc re tio n . Kebe v. G o nz a les , 473 F.3d 855 , 857 (7th C ir. 2007 ). W e d en y t h e p et itio n be c au se th e d ec isio n oft h e B IA w as su p p or te d by rat ion al e x p lan at ion
. Pel i nkov i c v. A sh croft, 366 F. 3d 532, 536 ( 7th Cir
. 2004 )
. N or did it i ne x p l i cabl y depar t fro m es tabl i shed pol i ci es orr esto n an i m perm i ssibl e ba si s. Id. Sp ec ifica lly, th e B IA co rre c tly o b s e r v e d tha t the i nfo r mat i o n c o nt a i ne d i n the 20 07 Cou nt r y Re po r t pr eda ted th e IJ ’ s J an ua r y 2 00 8 dec i si o n. The Board a l so noted that the m ate ri al s s ubm i tte d by Pa th m ak antha n r ev ea l ed th atfi g ht i ngha d b ee n o ng o i ng sinc e 20 06 , no twi th st an di ngthe c ea se - fi r e, s o the offi ci alend ofthe tr uce i n 200 8 was nots u fficie nt to sh ow ch an ge d co u n tr y c on d itio n s. N or d id t h e m at er ials re vealthatco nd i ti ons f orTam i l s in th e c ountr y had wor se ne d due t o the e nd o fthe c eas e- fi r e. The r efo r e, the B I A did not ab us e its dis c retion in de ny ing Pet iti one r’s m o ti o n t o r eo pen . N eve rthel es s, w e no te w i th so m e co ncer n the St ate D ep ar tm ent’ s 2 009 re porto n Sr iLanka, wh i ch pai nts a gr im p ict u re for T am ils g e n er ally an d you n g m ale T am ils i n parti cul ar . 20 09 C O UN TRY R EPORTS : S RI L ANK A ( obs er vin g that “ the o ver w hel m i ng m aj or i ty ofvi cti m s o f human r i g ht s vi o l at i o ns . . . wer e y o ungmal e Ta m i l s” a nd noti ng tha t “ [ i ] n J ulythe U N H i gh Com m i ssi oner f or Refugees ( U N H C R) re affi rm ed hi s r eco m m endati on th atTa m i l s fr o m a nd in th e no r thb e el i g ibl e f o r a sy l umN os. 08

- 2644& 08

- 3777 17 statu s given th e hu m an ri gh ts situat ion i n t h e cou nt ry”). Give n that the si tuati on i n Sr i Lanka m ay have c h an ged m ar kedl y s i nce Pathm aka nthan fi l ed hi s l astm oti on t o re open, he m ay w i sh to fi l e anothe r m oti on to re op en wi ththe BI A i n l i g hto fc ha ng ed c o unt r y c o ndi ti o ns sin c e t h e t im e o f th e h ea rin g. See 8 C.F. R
. § 1003.2(c)( 3)(i i) ; A s a n iv . INS , 154 F.3d 719 , 725 n.2 (7th C ir. 1998).

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, the gov er nm ent’ s m oti on t o dism i ss f orl ack ofj uri sdic ti on a nd t he co nsol i dated p etitions for review are D ENI ED .

7- 16- 10