Sr i Lank an and T am i l na m i ng c onve nt i ons di fferfro m our 1 own. W e re fert o the p etitione r by the na m e s etf or th i n the nar ra t i ve s t atem enthe s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tofhi s as yl um app li cat ion. A.R. 394. 

## 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 o. 07

- 2512 S UNDA RR . K R I S HNA PI LL AI, P etitio ner, v. E RICH . H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A 99-027- 190

A RGUED J UN E 2, 2008

— D ECIDED A PRI L 23, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd R OV NERa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . S und ar R. Kri shnapil l ai ( “Sundarar aj an”) , a nati ve and ci ti ze n of Sr iLanka, 1 peti ti ons f orr evi ew o fan o rdero fthe Board o fI m m igr a-2 N o. 07

- 2512 ti o n Appea l s ( th e “BI A” o r “ B oard ”) s us ta i ni ngthe d en ial of h is re q u es ts for a sy lu m , res tr ict ion on rem ov al, an d r el i efunder the U ni ted N ati ons Conventi on A gainst Tortu re. Ba sed on his ow n ex p erience s in Sri Lanka and on the adver se tr eat m ent o fo theret h n ic Tam i l s li ke h i m sel f, S und ar ar aj an co ntends thathe f aces l i kel y per secuti on a t the hands ofbo th the S riLankan author i ti es and ter ro ri st i n su rgents i fhe i s for cibl y r etu r ne d. Ho we v e r , t h e I mmi g r at i o n J udg e f o und Sundarar aj an’ s t est i m ony re gar ding hi s o w n experi ences to be i nc r e dib l e a nd de ni e d h i s c l a i ms b a s e d l a r g e l y o n the a dvers e cr edib il i ty fi nd i ng, and the Board affi rm ed tha tde c i s i o n. Be c a us e the IJ ’ s de c i s i o n, a s s up pl e m ented bythe Bo ar d, i s su ppo r te d by su bs ta nt i ale vi den ce a nd is not tainted by any l eg a l e r r or, w e d en y Sun d araraj an ’s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w.

I. S unda r ar aj an ’ s r eque st s f o r r el i efa r e f o unde d o n a bel i efthathe i s at ri sk ofhar m fro m bo th the ar m ed f or ces o f t he SriLa nk an govern m en t and the L iberation T igers ofTam i lEel am ( “LTT E”), a te rro ris t o rg ani zati on ba sed i n nor thern S ri L anka that f orm or e than thi rty y ear s has be enwag i nga v i o l en t ca m pai g n t o c r ea te a n inde pen den t st at e fo r S r iLa nk a’ s Ta m i lmin o r i ty
. S unda r ar aj an, hi m se l fa n e thni c Ta m i l, g av e the f o l l o wi nga cc o unto fthe ev en ts th at br ou gh t h im to th e U n ite d Sta te s in h is t es tim on y a n d in t h e n ar ra tiv e s ta te m en t a t t a c h e d to h is as y l um a ppl i ca ti o n.N o. 07

- 2512 3 S u n d a r a r aj a n wa s b o r n i n 1 9 6 9 i n Na v a t k u d a , a t o wn i n the Batti cal oa dist ri ct i n eas tern Sr i Lanka. H e h as w or ked bo th as a sel f

- em plo yed f ar m erand heavytr uck dr i ve r . He mar r i ed i n 1 99 4 an d no w h as th r ee c hi l dr en, ag ed five th ro u gh th irt ee n . H is w ife a n d ch ild r e n rem ain i n Sr iLanka. In19 90 or 1 99 1, Su n d ar ar aja n a n d h is fa m ily los t t h eir hom e and m ost of thei r bel ongings i n the m i dst of h eavy fi ghti ng be tw een the LTT E a n d t h e Sr iLankan ar m y. Fo r a t i m e, theyl i ved i n a r efugee cam p i n nearby Van th ar um o olai, b utthe i r fea r o fr an do m a r r es ts a nd detenti on bythe Sr iLankan ar m y e ventual l y l ed them to depart fo r the c oas tl i ne vi l l age o fN aval ady. The devas

tat i ng ts unam io fDecem ber20 04 too k the life o f Su n d ar ar ajan ’s b r o th er an d d es tr oy ed th e h u t h is fa m ily w as l i vi ng i n, al ong w ith w hat few poss ess i ons they had l eft. Inth e w ak e o f th e t su n am i, Su n d a r a raj an an d h is f ami l y ( i nc l udi nghi s par en ts ) l eft th e c oastalr eg i o n a nd eve ntual l y r el oca ted i nl and t o an ar ea then co ntro l l ed by the LTTE

. Fo r a y ear, theyl i ved ther e in pe ac e. B ut then fi ghti ng br oke o ut betw een th e LT TE and the Sr iLankan m i l i tar y, peopl e l i vi ng i n the ar ea becam e sub j ec t to ar r es t an d t o r tu r e bythe a r m y, a nd the g o ve r nm en t i m posed a n e c onom i c em bar go on thi s a nd o therar eas co nt r o l l ed bythe LTTE. To he l p m aint ain i ts c o nt r o lo fthe ar ea, the LT TE o rg ani zed a com pu l sor y “ sel f

- d efense” tr ai ni ng pro gr am , i n w hi ch at l eas t o ne m em b er of each f am i l y was exp ecte d to part i ci pate. S und ar ar aj an te sti fi ed th ath e was c o nt ac te d o n mul ti pl e o cc as i o ns abo ut4 N o. 07

- 2512 ta k i ngthe t r aini nga nd a t fi r stde m ur r ed. Even tu al l y, he fel t th athe ha d n o a lt erna ti ve b utt o a g r ee . Af te r t el l i ng th e LTTE tha t h e w o ul d pa r ti ci pat e i n the t r aini ng, he a dv i s e d hi s pa r e nt s a nd hi s wi fe t o mov e t o a n ar m ycontr ol l ed ar ea and tol d them thathe woul d j oi n them w hen he esca ped fro m the LT TE
. On the f ol l ow in g d ay, a d at e in A pri l20 06, the LT TE pi cked hi m up and too k hi m t o a t r aini ngc amp atKokati C holai, a r ur ala r ea . The cam p w as surr ounded bya fence and patro l l ed by ar m ed g ua r ds. S unda ra r aj ant es ti fi ed th ata fte r s pen di ng two da y s i n the cam p, he mana g ed to g eta way a t f o ur o’ cl ocki n the m or ni ng by tel l i ng the guards ( one ofwh om he kne w ) thathe was g oi ng o ut to b u y c i gar ett es at a ne arby sho p tha t o pen ed attha t ea r l y ho ur . He l eft th e LT TE

- contr ol l ed ar ea and j oi ned hi s f am i l y i n A rasa d y, a gov er nm ent- contr ol l ed zone , wh er e a p rie st gave them shel teri n a c hurch. H e s pent one ort w o m onths ther e. B ut the L T T E cam e looking f or him , and Sun d araraj an ’s w i fe was warn ed t h at he would be ki l l ed i fhe di d not re portbac k t o an LTT E pol i ti calo ffi ce. W i th hi s w i fe a nd pare nts ur gi ng hi m to fl ee Sr iLanka f orhi s ow n s afety, S und ar ar aj an r e- l oca ted byhi m sel fto Col o m bo, o n the wes t co as t o fthe c o unt r y . The r e he st ay ed i n a pr i va te l o dge f o r ne ar l y a month, unt i lhe w as ar re ste d i n a r ound-up by S riLankan pol i ce. Despi te hi s pro tes tat i ons to th e c ontrar y, he was ac cused by the a uthor i ti es ofbeing an L T T E m em berand w as b ea te n int o u n c on sc iou sn es s. A fte r se ve n o r e i g h t d ay s in p oli ce cu stod y, he w as fi na lly r eleased w he n h is w ife ar ri ved w i th docum en ts s how i ng tha t he w as m ar ri edN o. 07

- 2512 5 wi ththr ee c hi l dr ena nd c o nv i nc ed th e po l i ce tha t he w as no t an L T T E m em ber. Se ei ng the ar re sts and abuse that otheryoung T am i l s l i ke hi m sel fwere experi enci ng i n Col om bo, S und ar ar aj an deci ded thathe c oul d not r em ai n ther e. A fri end arr anged te mpo r a r y e mpl o y me n t f o r h i m i n S i n g a p o r e , an d he leftSri L an ka on Sep te m b er 2 8, 20 06 . B u t o n arr iva l in S i ng apo r e, he di sc o ve r ed th athe c o ul d rem ain f o r no lon ge r th an tw o w ee ks . Su n d ar ar ajan m et w ith an “a ge n t,” who i n e xc ha ng e f o r $ 3, 00 0 pr o vi ded hi m wi tha f or ged passpor t a nd m ade ar ra ngem ents for hi m to tr avel to Canad a vi a the U ni ted St ate s. H e w as to ld that if he w as st op p ed by Im m igr at ion o f f icia ls in th e U .S., h e c o u l d a l wa y s a s kf o r a s y l u m. Sundarar aj an fl ew to the U ni ted S tat es vi a S eoul, S outh K or ea on a for ge d Sin ga p or ea n p as sp or t. H e a r r ive d in th i s co unt r y on Oct o be r 1 1, 2 00 6. In r es po ns e to que st i o nin g b y custo m s offi ci al s, Sundarar aj an sai d that he w as a tou rist on his w ay to C an ad a. B u t w h en offici als det erm i ned that hi s pass portwa s fra ud ule nt, S und ar ar aj an adm i tte d that he was fl eeing Sr iLanka a nd had purchased the f al se passpor t for$3 , 000. H e w as re fused adm i ssi on i n t o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s a n d wa s t a k e n i n t o c u s to dy. He subsequentl y obtained c ou nseland fi l ed a F or m I

- 589 ap p l i c a t i o n for re lief in th e fo rm of as ylu m , see8 U. S
. C. § 11 58 , re st r i ct i o n onr emov al, 8 U. S
. C. § 1 23 1(b) ( 3) ( A), a nd wi thho l di ngo fr emov alpur su an t to the Uni te d Nat i o ns Conventi on Agai nst Tor ture and Other Cruel, Inhum an o r Degra ding Trea tm ent orP unis hm ent, 23 I
. L.M
. 10 27 ( 1984 ) ( “CA T”). H i s a pp l i catio n w as re fer re d to an I m m i gr ati on6 N o. 07

- 2512 Ju d ge (“IJ” ), w h o c on d u c te d an ev id en tia ry h ea rin g in J anuary20 07. S und ar ar aj an was the sol e witness at that hear i ng. I n additi on t o hi s t est im on y bef or e the IJ, S und ar ar aj an offe re d se ve ra l d oc u m en ts to sh ow th at h e an d h is fa m ily h ad be en th e t ar ge ts of a b u se in Sr i L an ka . Th es e m at er ials w er e s ent t o the Unite d Sta tes byS und ar ar aj an’ s wife, w ho w as conta cted by S und ar ar aj an’ s co usi n at the b ehest ofhi s co unsel

. N ot in cl ud ed am ong the docum ents w as any s tat em ent fro m S und ar ar aj an’ s w ife, al though she had be en a w itn es s to som e o fthe eve nts desc ribed inh is a sy lu m ap p lica tio n an d te st im on y, in c lu d in g h is for c ed en ro llm en t in L T T E tra in i n g a n d h is d et en tio n in C olom bo. W he n q ue stioned on th is point by th e IJ, Sundarar aj an would te stify that he w as not i n re gul ar conta ct with h is w i fe, and al though he knew her whereabouts i n Sr iLanka, it w oul d take atl eas t fi ftee n days for a letter to r each her. T he d ocu m en ts forw ard ed by Sun d araraj an ’s w ife i nc l ude d the f o l l o wi ng . A tr ansl at ed ex tr ac t fr o m the “i nfo rm ati on bo ok” o fa pol i ce s tat i on in Sr iLanka descr ibes a co m pla i nt thathi s wife fi l ed w i th the pol i ce fol low ing his d ep artu re fr om SriLa nk a. Sun d ara r aj an ’s w i fe a l l ege d that peo ple had com e t o her re si dence l o o k i ngf o r he r husba nd i n pr ev i o us weeks. In o ne i nst an c e, so m e m en ca m e t o th e re sid en c e a t t en o’c loc k in the e veni ng , w ok e ever yo ne up, dem anded to kno w her hu sb an d’s w here abouts , thr eat ened her, and then l eft. S he ha d a l so r ec ei ve d t el epho ne c al l s th r ea te ni ngthe l i ve s o fher se l fand herf ami l y mem be r s. Herhusba nd, s heN o. 07

- 2512 7 sai d, h a d l e ftthe c o un t r y du e t o the s a me t y pe o fh ar ass m ent she and he r chi l dren w er e experi enci ng. “[ W ]e live w i th fearand i n secur i ty, ” s he st ate d. A
. R. 23 5. A l so subm i tte d w as a r ecei pt i nd i catingthata “Com pla i nt o f T h r e a t ” h a d be e n fi l e d w i th th e H u ma n R i g h t s C o mm i ss i o n o fSr iLank a ati ts r eg i o na lo ffi ce i n Ba tt i ca l o a. A. R. 24 4. W e a re to l d that the co m pla i nt was fi l ed on Sundarar aj an’ s be hal f; however, the re cei p t doe s no t re ve al th e content ofthe com pla i nt. Final l y, ther e i s a tr an sl at ed l et te r da te d Nov embe r 3 0, 2 00 6, fr o m the Rev e r e nd F a the r J e r e mi a h S
. Ar a s a r a thina m, the di r e c t or ofa hom e forse ni orci ti zens i n Battic alo a. H e ind i cate s th at Su nd araraj an ’s w ife and three ch ild r en had “un d ergon e trem en d ou s d iffi cu lti es d u r ing the pa st few years und erthe hand s o fan unknow n a rm ed gr oup. ” A.R. 24 5. T h eir h ou se h a d b e e n d am ag ed , th ey h ad m ov ed th eir re si dence due to threa ts , a nd theyhad spent the l ast th re e m on th s a t t h e s en ior c itize ns’ res id en c e “ as refu ge es .” A. R
. 2 4 5
. “ Du e t o d e a th th r e a t s g i v e n b y s o me u n k n o wn g r o up t o M r . S untha r ar aj ah[ si c] , he fl ed th e c ount r y due to fear about 4 m ont hs ago and I[ ha ve] com e to un d ersta nd thathe i s pre sentl y in A m er i ca. ” A.R. 24 5. Als o i n the r ec o r d i s th e Dec embe r 2 00 6 r epo r t o f th e U ni ted N ati ons Offi ce of the H i gh Com m i ssi oner f or Refugees ( “U N H CR ”) r egardi ng as yl um - see ker s fro m Sr iLanka. A
. R. 24 9. T h e r epor t no tes a gener aldeter i or ati o n in the s ec ur i tys i tu ati o n in S r iLa nk a dur i ngthe prece ding yea r du e t o an upri si ng withi n the LT TE and an esca lation i n v io len ce bet w een the L T T E and the Sri Lankan ar m ed f or ces, w i th pre dict abl e co nsequences f orthe ci vi l i ans who ar e incre asi ngl y b ei ng d raw n into8 N o. 07

- 2512 th e c o n fl i c t
. T h e r e p o r t a l s o d e s c r ib e s i n s o me d e t a i l t he Catch-2 2 in w hi ch ethnic Tam i l s fi nd them sel ves. I n additi on to th e s i tuati on o fwidesprea d i nsecuri ty an d th e i m pac t o fthe a r m ed co nfl i cti n the Nor tha nd East, Tam i l s in a n d from thes e r egi ons ar e a t r i sk of ta rg et ed vio lat ion s o f th eir h u m an righ ts f ro m all par ti es t o the a r m e d c o n fl i c t
. Ha r a s s me n t, in ti m i dat i o n, ar re st, detent i on, to rture, abducti on a nd ki l l i ng at the hands o fgo ver nm ent for ces, the LT TE and param i l i tar y o r ar m ed gr oups are frequentl y r epor ted to be infl i cted o n Tam i l s fro m the N or th and East. A
. R. 25 3. Those suspecte d ofL TTE affi l i ati on are at ri sk of abuse by ei therthe author itie s or gov er nm ent- sponsor ed param i l i tar y g ro up s. A
. R. 25 3- 54. On the othe r hand , they m ayb e ta r g et ed f o r abus e by th e LTTE i f th ey do no t l en d th eir su p p or t to th e ins u rg en ts : T h e L T T E h as be en im p lic at ed in s om e 2 0 0 t ar ge te d killin gs , m os tly of T am ils su sp ecte d of op p osing th e L T T E . A
. R
. 254. T he report al so note s the di ffi cul ti es f aced byTam i l s in and f ro m Col om bo. In additi on t o bein g at hei ghtene d ri sk f or se c u rit y c h ec ks an d th e like by t h e a u th or itie s, “T am ils in Co l o mbo a r e e s pe c i a l l y v ulne r ab l e to ab du c t i o ns , di s a ppeara nces, and ki l l i ngs. ” A.R. 25 7. The re portchar acte ri zes the o ver al lsi tuati on in Sr iLan ka “as o ne o fge nera l i zed vio len c e a n d ev en ts se riou sly d ist u rb in g p u b lic or d er .” A
. R. 260. Forthose ci ti zens w ho have bee n si ngl ed out f or ab us e b y the LT TE , the r e po r tp a i nt s a g r i m p i cture
. “[ T]her e i s no r eal i sti c fl i ght a l ternati ve gi ven th e r each of the LT TE and the i nabi l i ty of the author i ti es to p rov i d e a s s u r e d p r o t e c t i o n . ” A. R
. 2 6 1
. T h e p o i n t i s ma deN o. 07

- 2512 9

m or e e m phati cal l y with re spect t o Tam i l s who, l i ke Sundarar aj an, hai lfro m the N or th and East ofS riLanka: I n r el at i o n t o Ta m il s fro m the Nor tho r Ea stfl ee i ng gener al i zed vi ol ence, there i s no i nter nalfl i ght a l ternati ve w i thi n the N or th o r East gi ven the si tuati on o f ar m ed confli ct. N or w ou ld it be poss ibl e and /or safe to t r av elt o o th era r ea s i n l i gh t o f th e cl o su r e o fthe A 9 hi ghw ay to ci vi l i ans, l ack of othe r tr avelr outes , and the r i sks enta i l ed i n t ra ve li ng o ut o fthe N or th an d E as t. T am ils w h o a re ab le t o re ac h C olo m b o c ou ld be v ul ne r ab l e to a rbi tr ary a r r es ts , de te nt i o n a nd ot her f or m s o fhum an r i ghts abuses Tam i l s hav e f ac ed th er e. I t m aybe not ed th atTa m i l s o r i g i na ting fr o m t he No r th a nd E ast, i n pa r t i c ul a r fr o m LTT Econtr ol l ed ar eas , ar e per cei ved by t h e authori ti es as p oten tial L T T E m em bers or sup p orters, an d are m or e li kel y t o be s ubj ect to ar re sts , detent i on, abductio n an d ev en killin gs . . . . A. R. 2 6 1 ( f o o tno t e o mi t t e d)

. T he r e po r tthu s r e c o mm e nd s that “[ n]o Tam i lfro m the N or th o r E as t s houl d be r etu rn ed forc ibly u n til th er e is sign ifica n t i m p ro ve m en t in the s ecuri ty si tuati on in Sr iLanka. ” A.R. 26 1. I t m ake s the s am e r eco m m endati on f orTam i l s fro m Col om bo. A
. R. 26 2. The U

. S. S tat e Depart m ent’s 20 05 Country Reporto n H um an Ri ghts Practice s i n Sr iLanka, A
. R. 29 2, m ake s som e o fthe sam e obser vati ons as th e U N H CR r epor t, w i thout re achi ng the co ncl usi on that Tam il s s houl d not be r etur ned i nvol untari l y to the country

. Itacknow l edges tha tthe LTTE h a s e ng a g e d in “ t a r g e t e d k i l l i ng s , k i dn a p-10 N o. 07

- 2512 ping, hij ackings o ftr uck s hi pm ents, and f or cibl e r ecrui tm ent, i ncl ud i ng o fchi l dren. ” A.R. 29 7. The r epor t a l so ac k no wl edg es the abus es tha t o cc uro n the pa r t o fthe au th o r i ti es , i nc l udi nga rbi tr ar y ar r es ts a nd de te nt i o ns (m ost often of T am il s) an d th e “en d em ic ” us e o f t ortu re to e x t ra c t c on fes sio n s. A .R . 294 . “Im p u n ity , pa rt icu lar ly f orcas es of pol i ce tor ture , w as a s eve re pro bl em , ” in 200 5. A. R. 2 95
. Al th o ug h in f ar l es s det ai la nd de g r ee , the Co un t r y R e po r td oe s a c k no wl e dg e the p a r t i c ul a r h a r dshi ps fac ed b y ethni c Tam i l s. I t ind i cate s o fthe 339, 000 i nter nal l y di spl aced per sons i n Sr iLanka, so m e 5 0, 000 of them ( pri m ar ily Tam i l s) ar e unabl e t o re set tl e due to o ng o i ngc o nfli ct b etwee n the LTTE a nd the g o ve r nm en t and the hi gh- secur i ty zones ass oci ate d with that c on fl i ct. A
. R. 30 0. Vari ous a nd sundry new spaper ar ti cl es, co m m uniqués fro m hum an r i ghts or gani zati ons, and i nter net pos ti ngs subm i tte d by S und ar ar aj an m ake si m i l arpoi nts. The adver se condi ti ons these docum ents describe for th e citizens of Sri L an ka, an d for T am il s in p artic u la r , a re c on sist ent with the experi ences that Sundarar aj an r eco unt ed i n h i s as y l um a ppli ca ti o n a nd i n h i s te st i m o ny before the IJ. Bu t, a ft e r h e a r i ngS un da r a r aj a n’ s t e s t i mon y a nd c o ns i der i ng the o therev i dence h e s ubm i tte d, I m m i gr ati on J u d g e G ab r i e lV i d e l a d e n i e d h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a s y l um and otherr el i efi n a c oge nt d eci si on. A
. R. 56
. “[ T]he m ost tr oubl i ng poi nt i n thi s ca se i s the r espondent’ s cr ed ibi l i ty and I h av e tr i ed ver y har d to ove rl oo k the cr edibi l i ty probl em s pre sent i n thi s ca se and unfor tunatel y IN o. 07

- 2512 11

c an n otd o s o.” A .R . 74. T h e I J n ot ed inc on sis te n c ies in Sundarar aj an’ s t est i m ony as to the t i m i ng o ftwo ke y eve nts, bo th o fw hi ch had occur re d w i thi n one yea r of the J anuary20 07 hear i ng. Fi rst, Sun darar aj an had wave r ed as t o whethe r he was pi ck ed up a nd t ak ent o the LT TE cam p f ortr ai ni ng i n M ar ch orA pri l20 06. A
. R. 76
. A nd se cond, S und ar ar aj an te sti fi ed t h at he was ar re ste d by the pol i ce in Col om bo on A ugust 2 8, 20 06, but that date was o ffbysever alm onths fro m the date o fM ay 20, 2006 , thatthe IJ deri ved fro m the ch ronol ogyo fev ents ( fr o m S unda r ar aj an ’ s i nt ernm en t an d e sc ap e fr o m the LT TE cam p, to hi s br i efr euni fi cati on wit h hi s f am i l y, and then hi s r el oca ti on t o Col om bo) th at Sundarar aj an had setfor th at the hear i ng. A
. R. 76

- 77. The i nconsi ste ncy as t o th e d at e o f h is a rre st st ru c k t h e IJ as p ar tic u lar ly signi fi ca nt
. “Now I ca n unde r st an d a di sc r epa nc y of a day o r tw o, orev en a m onth, but thi s i s a se ri ous di scr epan cy bec au se i t i s o ve r thr ee months a nd, whenthe re spon dent w as confro nted w i th thi s, he r eal l y nev er c a me up wi th a r e s po ns i v e a ns we r a nd , t o me , thi s i nd i v i dual testi fyi ng be f or e the Courtdoes notappear to be te st ifyin g fro m a c tu al e x p er ien c e.” A .R . 77. Ju d ge V id ela al so f ou n d S und ar ar aj an’ s t est i m ony that he had es caped fr o m the LTTE c amp byt el l i ngthe gua r ds th athe w as going o ut to buy ci gar ett es i m pla usibl e. I fthe se i ndi vi dual s wer e so i nt en t i n c o m i nga fte r the r e s p o n d e n tth a t t he y ma d e n o to n e c o n t a c to r t wo c on tacts, but thre e co ntacts , and theyf or cefully t oo k h im aw ay w ith arm ed ind ivid u als an d th ey p u t h im i n a c am p surr ound ed b y a fence and patro l l ed by th eir p eo p le w h o h ad w ea p on s, I ver y re sp ec tfu lly12 N o. 07

- 2512 fin d it d ifficu lt t o b elie ve th a t th e re sp on d en t w ou ld j us t b e a l l o we d t o g o b u y c i g a r e t t e s th r o u g h th e fr o nt gat e a t 4 : 00 a. m . i n the m or ni ng and si m plyneve r go back

. I t doe s no t m ake se nse. A
. R. 78
. Final l y, the IJ not ed the i nconsi ste ncy be

tw ee n S und ar ar aj an’ s t est i m ony that he l eft S riLanka o n Se p te m b er 28 , 200 6, an d th e asy lu m ap p lica tio n w h ich h is at to r ne y ha d pr epa r ed an d tha t he had r ev i ewe d a nd signed , w hi ch repe ated ly ind icated that he d ep arted Sri Lanka o n J uly19 , 2006. A
. R. 79. H e rej ecte d the pos sibi l i ty that the date o n the a p p licat i on was a m i sta ke, as Sundarar aj an’ s a tto rneysugg est ed. A
. R. 79

- 80. Based o n these i nconsi ste nci es, the IJ concl ud ed that Su n darar aj an w as not a cr edibl e witness. A
. R. 74
. Gi ve n S unda r ar aj an ’ s l ac ko fc r edibi l i ty as a wi tn es s, the IJ f o und it r ea so nabl e to e xpe cttha t he woul d pr es en t addi ti o na le vi den ce t o c o r r o bo r at e hi s acc o unt, i nc l udi ng for ex am p le a let te r fro m h is w i f e , w h o ac c or d in g t o h is te sti m ony w as a witness to som e o fthe eve nts he had de s c r ib e d. A. R. 8 0

- 8 1
. Bu th e h a d n o tdo ne s o , a l though s u c h e v i d e n c e wa s r e a s o n ab l y a v a i l a b l e t o h i m. S unda r ar aj anha d, f o r e xa m p le, ment i o ne d a l et te rhe ha d r e c e i v e d fr o m s o me o n e i n Ne w Y o r k d e s c r ib i n gt he diffi cul ti es hi s wife w as e x peri enci ng i n Sr iLanka. Yet Sundarar aj an had i nexpli cabl y thro w n the l ett eraway despit e the f act that hi s a syl um appli cati on was pend i ng and he unders too d the nee d fo r docum ents supp or ti ng hi s cl ai m s. A
. R. 80

- 81. N otwithstandi ng the l ack ofcr edibl e e vi d en c e that Sun d araraj an h ad exp erience d pa st p ersecu tion in SriN o. 07

- 2512 13 Lan k a, the IJ wento n t o c o ns i derthe po ss ibi li ty th athe m ight be p ersecu ted up on h is r etu rn to th at cou nt ry g i ve n h i s Tam ile thni ci ty
. The IJ a ckno wl edg ed th atthe sit u at ion for T a m ils in Sri L an ka is “q u ite d ire ,” but w ithout add i ti onal ev i dence sugg est i ng tha t S unda r ar aj ani n pa r ti cul arwoul d b e sing l ed o ut, the j u d ge w as u nw il ling to assu m e based on Sun d araraj an ’s ethni ci ty al one that he w as l i kel y to be per secute d. A
. R. 82
. A l though the bac kgr ound evi dence ofhum an r i ghts vio lat ion s a n d to rt u re in Sri L an ka w as “q u ite sign ifica n t,” the J udg e di d no t fi nd i t su ffi ci en t to e st ab l i sha pa tt ern and practi ce o fper secuting Tam i l s in Sr iLanka that woul d rel ie ve S unda r ar aj ano fpr es en tingpr o o ftha t he inp ar tic u lar w ou ld fac e s u c h ab u se s u p on ret u rn to h is hom el and. A
. R. 82

- 83. J ud ge Videl a co ncl ud ed f orthes e r eas ons that Sundarar aj an had not prove n that he had a w el l

- f ounded fea r of p er se c u tio n in Sr i L an ka s u c h th at h e w as eligib le f oras yl um . A
. R. 83
. B ec au se hi s cl ai m f orr est ri cti on o n re m ov al w as su bje c t t o a h igh er bu rd en of p ro of, it foll owed thathe ha d n ot est abl i shed hi s e l i gibi l i ty f orthat r el i efe i th er . A. R. 8 3. And be ca us e the judge ha d f o und Sundarar aj an’ s t est i m ony l acking i n cre dibi l i ty, hi s r equest f orr el i efunder the C A T al so f ai l ed. A
. R. 83- 84. S peci fi cal l y, Sundarar ajan h ad notsho w n that he was l i kel y t o be arrested up on h is r etu r n t o Sri Lan ka an d that, i f he w ere ar re ste d, he would be physi cal l y m i str eat ed. A
. R. 84
. The BIA sustained the IJ ’ s adverse cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati on. A
. R. 2. The Boar d agr eed with S und ar ar aj an that hi s inconsi ste nt te sti m ony as to w h et h erthe LT TE to ok14 N o. 07

- 2512 hi m to the tr ai ni ng ca m p i n M ar ch or A p ril o f20 06 w as a m i no r i nc o ns i st en cy, m o st l i k ely a sl i p o f th e tongue whi c h, pr i o r t o e na c t men t o f the RE AL I D Ac to f2 0 0 5 , P
. L. 109- 13, 11 9 S tat
. 23 1, 30 2, wou ld nothave j usti fi ed an advers e cr edibi l i ty fi nd i ng. A
. R. 4. “Even unde r the ne w le g i sla tio n, w e c an n otfind th at th e a p p lica n t’s ‘slip ’ is su fficie n t t o d o u b t h is e n tir e c laim , alth ou gh it co u ld , in vie w in g t h e t ot alit y of t h e c irc u m st an c es , p r o v id e a d d iti onalev i dence foran a dvers e cr edibi l i ty fi nd i ng. ” A.R. 4. B u t t h e B o a r d be liev ed th at th e IJ w as fu lly j u st ified in ci ti ng the di scr epancy in Sundarar aj an ’s t est i m ony as to th e d at e o f h is a rre st in C olo m b o a s a rea so n to d ou b t h is cre dibi l i ty. The Boar d rej ecte d Sund ar ar aj an’ s co ntenti on th at th e IJ, in re as on in g t h at h e s h ou ld be ab le t o a c c u ra te ly r ec al lthe da te o fs o t r au m at i c epi so de as hi s ar r es t an d su bs eque ntde te nt i o n, was s i m pl y s pec ul at i nga s to the tr au m atic na tu r e o ftha t ev en t. “ The v ery f ac t th atthe appli cant r elies on thi s inci dent to support hi s cl ai m o f fea r from go ve r nm en ta lf o r ce s i n S r iLa nk a i s su ffi ci en t to c o nc l ud e t hat i t was a t r au m at i c ev en t f o r hi m , l ea di ng inp ar t t o h i s d ep ar tu re .” A .R . 4. Th e B oa rd sim ilar ly rej ecte d Sund ar ar aj an’ s co ntenti on that the IJw as specul ating when he f o und the a cc o unto fhi s es ca pe fr o m the LT TE cam p i m pla usibl e. “I t is n ot m er el y s pecula ti ve to sa y t h at th e a p p lica n t’s c l a i m of be in g for c efu lly r e mo v e d fr o m h i s h o me a nd f o r c e d t o r e ma i n i n a c a mp r un b y the LTTE i s ato dds wi thhi s statem enttha t he

‘ esca ped’ wh en al l owed to go to the sto re to buy ci gare tte s. ” A
. R. 4- 5. Fi nal l y, the Board concl ud ed that S un da r a r aj a n ha d n o ta de qu a t e l y e xp l a i ne d t he di s c r e pancy between hi s t est i m on y a nd hi s a syl um appli cati onN o. 07

- 2512 15

as to w hen i t was thathe l eft S riLanka. A .R . 5 . “ A l lo f these i nconsi ste nci es tak en to gether ar e s ufficie nt to supp or t the I m m i gr ati on J ud ge ’s a dvers e cr edibi l i ty fi nd i ng. ” A.R. 5. T h e B o ar d w en t o n to su st ain th e IJ’s d em an d for e vid en c e t o c or ro b or at e Su n d ar ar ajan ’s a c c ou n t a s w ell as h is concl usi on that S und ar ar aj an h ad f ai l ed to pre sent adequa te c o r r o bo r at i o n. In the B o ar d’ s vi ew, the IJ ha d c o nsi der ed whate vi den ce S unda r ar aj anha d t en der ed, b ut foun d i t in ad eq ua te to su bsta nt iate h is story. In p articu lar, the Boa rd not ed that the b ackgrou n d evi dence of the c i vi lst ri fe a nd hum an r i ghts ab u se s to w hi ch Su n d ar ar ajan p oin te d , a lth ou gh it w as “im p or ta n t g en er alized eviden ce” of the ty p es of abus es occu rri ng i n Sri Lanka, w as not “suffi ci ent to re habi l i tat e his s u spect cr edibi l i tyabo ut[ hi s o wn ] p a s tp e r s o n ale xpe r i en ce s. ” A. R. 5. Th e B oar d thus susta i ned the IJ ’ s co ncl usi on that Sun darar aj an f ai l ed to pro ve he was the vi cti m o fpast per se cut i o n. The Board a l so rej ecte d Sund ar ar aj an’ s co ntenti on th at, r eg ar dl ess of hi s o wn ex per i en ce i n S r iLa nk a, he w as enti tl ed to r el i efi n vi ew o fa pattern orprac ti ce o f p er se c u tio n of T am ils in Sri L an ka . Th e B oa rd a c kn ow led ged the on going civilstrife betw een the L T T E and Sri Lankan ar m ed f or ces and rec ogni zed that“hum an r i ghts vio lat ion s d o o c c u r o n a lar ge sc ale in Sr i L an ka ,” b u t it f ound the ev i dence oftho se abuses i nsuffi ci ent t o est abl i sh a “patte rn o r pract i ce” ofper secuti on o n the b asis o f ra c e, et h n icit y, or an ot h er p ro te c te d gr ou n d

. A .R . 6 . It als o fou n d t h e e v i d en c e in su fficie n t t o e st ab lish a like li-16 N o. 07

- 2512 hood thatS und ar ar aj an would b e tortur ed i fr etur ned to Sr iLanka. A
. R. 6. Fi nal l y, the BIA rej ecte d Su nd ar ar aj an’ s co ntenti on that a r em and was nece ssa rybec ause the IJ had negl ecte d to adjud icate the add i ti onalcl ai m thathe woul d fa ce ha rm in SriLanka a s a f ai l ed asy l um - see ker

. A
. R. 5 n. 1. The Board f ound no e rro r i n the IJ ’ s o m i ssi on t o add re ss th i s cl ai m s pec i fi ca l l y, e ven a ssumi ngtha t f ai l ed as y l um seeke rs are a social grou p w ho could be sai d to sh a re an im m u ta b le c h ar ac te ris tic , s u c h th at th ey co u ld cla im a r i g htt o a sy l um . The Bo ar d s aw thi s cl ai m a s depe nde nt o n S u n d a r a r aj a n ’ s c r e d ib i l i t y, a n d “ [ w] e a ffi r m th e I mm igr at ion Ju d ge ’s a d ve rs e c re d i b ility d et er m in at ion .” A
. R. 5 n. 1.

II. We r e v i e w th e IJ ’ s d e c i s i o n a s s u p p l e me n t e d b y t he B oa rd ’s o w n an aly sis
. E.g
. , B a k a ria n v . M uk a sey, 54 1 F
. 3d 775, 781 (7th C ir. 2008 ). W e exa m ine th e IJ’ s factu al dete rm i nati ons defe re nti al l y a nd wil luphol d th em s o l ong as t h e y h av e t h e s u p p or t o f su b st an tia l ev id en c e. E.g
. , Ing m a nto ro v . M uk a sey, 5 5 0 F
. 3 d 6 4 6 , 6 4 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )
. At the cor e o fb o th the IJ ’ s de c i s i o n a nd the Bo a r d’ s o r der up hol ding i t was the dete rm i nati on that S und ar ar aj an had fa i l ed to sho w thathe ha s a w el l

- f ounded fearthat h e w ill b e pe rs ec u te d if re tu rn ed to Sri L an ka

. W e w ill d ist u rb th at d et er m in at ion on ly if th e e vid en c e o f likely p er se c u tio n w as “ ‘so co m p ellin g t h at n o re as on ab le factfind er cou ld failto find the req uisite d e g ree of p ersec u tio n . ’ ” C ha tta v. M uk a sey, 523 F.3d 748 , 752 (7th C ir.N o. 07

- 2512 17

Su nd ara rajan also fau lts the B oa rd f or cha rac terizin g his 2 arr est in C ol om b o a s a trau m atic ev en t w ho se d ate h e sho u ld b e ab le to reca ll corre ctly, w he n it w as his forced enr ollm en t in the L T T E train ing cam p tha t the IJ cited as a trau m atic ev en t. I ti s t ru e thatthe IJ que s t i one d Sun dar ar aj an a b outthe t r a u mat i c na t u r e ofb e i n g t a k e n i n v o l u n t a r i l y f o r t r a i n i n g , A. R. 1 9 2 , a n d c i t e d th a t e v e n t a s a t r a u mat i c o n e i n h i s d e c i s i o n, A. R. 76
. Bu tthe IJ e l s e whe r e r e fe r r e d t o bo th e ve nt s a s t r aum ati c, A
. R
. 75, and a s the Board its el fpointed out, the f actthat Sun dar ar aj an c i t ed h i s ar re s tas a bas i s f or h is fe ar ofpe rs ec uti on speaks t o the tr aum ati c nature ofthatevent. A.R. 4. 2008 ) ( quoti ng IN S v. Eli as - Zacar i as , 50 2 U.S
. 47 8, 48 4, 11 2 S. Ct
. 812, 817 (1992 ))
.
A
. A dvers e cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati on A s w as tr u e be for e th e B IA , Su n d ar ar ajan ’s fir s t ch all enge i s t o the IJ ’ s dete rm i nati on that his te sti m ony w as n otcr ed i b le. H e c on te n d s, co n tr ar y t o th e B oa rd ’s d ec isi on, thatthe advers e cr edibi l i ty det erm i nati on was unfo und ed, and i n supp or t o fthatco ntention he ci tes three a spects o fthe re aso ni ng em plo yed bythe IJ and/o r th e B oard that he bel ie v e s w ere fl aw ed

. Fi rst, th e B oard re presented thathe c ontr adic ted hi m sel fas to the date o fhi s a r r e s ti n C o l o mb o : “ h e o r i g i n a l l y a l l e g e d th a the w as arre st ed in M ay of20 06, but l ate r tes ti fi ed the ar re st occur re d on A ugust 25, 2006
. ” A
. R. 4. I n f act, S und ar ar aj an p oin ts ou t, h e n e v e r c i te d M ay as th e m on th of h is arr es t, o nl yAugus t. He a dds th atthe UN H CR report supp or ts h is tes ti m ony that hi s a rr estwould have tak en p lac e in A u gu st
. S ec on d , h e c on te n d s t h at th e IJ, in 2 disc ounti ng as i m pla usibl e hi s a ccount ofes capi ng fro m18 N o. 07

- 2512

Su nd ara rajan ad d s that in the statem e n t a ttach ed to his 3 asy l um appl i c at i on, he s t at ed thathe was i n S i nga por e f or f ou r t e e n da ys , whi c h t a l l i e s wi th hi s t e s t i m on y tha t he l e f t S ri Lan ka on Septem ber 28, 200 6 and arrived in the United Stat es on Oct obe r 11
. Tha ti s t ru e as f ar as i tgoe s . Buti td oe s no t res olve the patenti n consi st ency between his as ylum app li cat i on and h i s te stim ony as t o the dat e ofhi s depa rtur e f ro m Sri Lank a. th e LTTE c amp, mis ch ar ac te r i ze d hi s t es ti m o ny a nd as su m ed fac ts th at w er e n otbo rn e o u t b y t h e re c o r d . In parti cul a r, the IJ a s s ume d tha th e h a d b e e n t a k en f or cibl y t o the c am p and that the cam p w as secur e, such th athe woul d no t ha ve be en per m i tt ed to si m pl y wal ko ut ofthe cam p i n or der t o buy ci gar ett es. In re al i ty, Sundarar aj an r epres ents, he ne ver t est i fi ed that he was tak en to the cam p by for c e, and al though the cam p w as bot h f e nc ed and pa troll ed , he test ified th at p eop le w ere fre e t o com e a nd go fro m the cam p. Thi rd , al though he a ckno wl edg es the di sc r epa nc y b etwee n h i s te st i m o ny an d his asylum ap p li cation as to th e d ate of his dep artu re fro m S riLanka, h e insi sts thatthe disc re pancy was adequ a t e l y e xp l a i ne d. He t e s t i f i ed tha th e wa s i n c us t o dy w hen hi s a tto rneypre pared t h e ap pli cati on a nd co nsequentl y was o nl y abl e t o consul t with hi s co unselo ver the t e l e ph o ne , thu s s ug g e s t i ngtha tthe mi s t a k e was si m pl y the r es ul t o fm isco m m uni ca ti o n o r o ve r si g ht r athe r tha n pr ev ar i ca ti o n. 3 The I N A , as am ended by the R EA L I D A ct o f20 05, se ts f o r th the p ar a met e r s f o r the I mm i g r a t i o n J ud g e ’ s c r e dibi l i ty deter m i nati ons:N o. 07

- 2512 19 C on sid er in g t h e t ot alit y o fth e c irc u m st an c es , an d all re l ev a ntf a c t o r s , a t r i e r o ff a c tma y b a s e a c r e dib i l i ty deter m i nati on o n the dem e a no r, c andor, o r re sponsi ven es s o f th e a p p lica n t or w itn es s, th e in h er en t p lau sib ili tyo fthe a ppl i cant’ s o r wi tn es s’ s ac co unt, the c o nsi ste ncy be tw een the appli cant’ s o r w i tness’ s wri tte n a nd o r a l s t a t e men t s ( whe ne v e r mad e a nd whe the r or not und ero ath, and consi dering the c i rcum sta nces u n d er wh i ch the sta tem ents w er e m ade) , the i nter nal consi ste ncy o fea ch such state m ent, the consi ste ncy o f s uc h s t a t e men t s wi th o the r e v i de nc e o fr e c o r d ( i nc l ud

ing the reports of th e D ep artm en t of State on cou nt ry c on d itio n s), an d an y in ac c u ra c ies or fa lse h oo d s in su chs ta te m en ts , wi th o ut r eg ar d t o whethe r a n inc o nsi ste ncy, i naccurac y, or f al seho od go es to the he ar t o f th e a p p lica n t’s cla im , or an y ot h er rele va n t fa c to r. . . . 8 U.S
. C. § 1 158(b) ( 1)(B)( i i i )
. A s the te rm s o fthe sta tute m ak e cl ea r, the IJ i s no l o ng err equi r ed to l i nki nc o ns i st en c ies, i naccurac i es, and f al seho ods i n a witness’ s t est im ony to the h eart of the im m igrant’s c la im before re l yi ng o n thos e defects as a re as on t o disc re dita w i tn es s’s te st im on y. M ito nd o v. M uk a sey, 52 3 F
. 3d 784, 78 7- 88 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 )
. The IJ does re m ai n obl i ged to di stingui sh between i nconsi ste nc ies and the l i ke that ar e m ate ri al an d th os e t h atare n ot
. Ka dia v. G o nz a les , 50 1 F .3d 8 17, 82 2 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ). Ob vio u sly , th e IJ, ha vin g h ea rd th e t es timon y fi r s t ha nd , i s f a r b e t t e r s i t ua t e d t o a s s e s s the c r e dibilit y of a w itn es s t h an w e a re . Gar c i a v . INS , 31 F. 3d 441, 444 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( quoti ng E s t r a d a v. INS , 775 F
. 2d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 1 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) )
. On l y i n e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u ms t a n c es w ill w e u p se t h is c re d ibilit y a ss es sm en t. E.g
. , M uso lla ri v. M uk a sey, 545 F.3d 505 , 508 (7th C ir. 2008).20 N o. 07

- 2512 H aving review ed the d ec isi ons of th e IJ an d the B oard alo n g with the evi denti ar y r eco rd, we disc er n no ba si s o n w h ich to d ist u r b t h e IJ’s d ec isio n n otto cr ed it S unda r ar aj an ’ s te st i m o ny . To b egi n, the r e was a n inc o nsi ste ncy in hi s t est i m ony as to w hetherhi s a rre st i n Col om bo occur re d i n M ay orA ugust 2 006. I t i s t rue that Sundarar aj an never m enti oned M ay 2006 as the date o f hi s a r r e s t, a s the Bo ar d s ug g e s t e d. A. R. 4
. I twa s , i ns t e a d, the IJ wh o deri ved thatdate fro m the sequence ofev ents to w hich Sun d araraj a n had testifi ed

. Bu t the IJ’ s inferen c e in th at reg ar d w as n on e t h ele ss gro u n d ed in Sundarar aj an’ s t est i m ony, and the IJ e x pli ci tl y s et f or th the b ase s fori nfe rr i ng that S und ar ar aj an had bee n ar r e s t e d i n Ma y . A. R
. 7 6

- 7 7
. S u n d a r a r aj a n h a s n o ts h o wn that the IJ ’ s ca l culat ion ofthe M ay date was o ff

-base , and w e fi n d t h at i t i s co nsi ste nt with the c hro nol ogyto w hi ch Sundarar aj an te sti fi ed. S o w hen Sunda raraj an tes ti fi ed that he was ar re ste d i n A ugust, rat h er than M ay, he i m plici tl y c ontr adic ted the chr onol ogyhe ha d alr ea d y se t fo rt h in h is t es tim on y. T h e U N H C Rrep or t is ofno hel p to Sundarar aj an i n expla i ni ng the di scr epancy: The re portsi m plyco nfi rm s that Tam i l s were at hei ghtene d r i sko fs ec ur i ty ch ec k s, arbi tr ar y s ea r ch es , ha r as sment, a nd th e l i k e as the r es ul t o fne w go ve r nm en ta lr egul at i o ns i m po se d i n Apr i la nd De ce m be r 2 00 6. A. R. 2 57. The re portsup p or ts the no ti on that S und ar ar aj an co uld have b e e n a r r e s t e d wi thin the Apr i lt o De c e mbe r t i me pe r i o d, b u t itd oe s n ot p oin t to eit h er M ay or A u gu st as th e like ly dat e. W e al so no te th at S unda r ar aj anc o nfes se d t o c o nfus i o n a nd a n inabi l i tyt o r ec al lthe date o fhi s ar r es t an d the c hro nol ogyo fev ents l eadi ng up to it w i th speci fi ci tyN o. 07

- 2512 21

w hen pres sed o n thi s point bythe IJ. A
. R. 19 9 ( “Because o fthe t en si o n Ic ou ldn ’t r ememberi t pr o per l y . . . . Actual l y, Ican’ t calcu lat e the m onths because Iwas

— Iw asn ’t th i n k i n gc l e a r l y . Ic a n ’ tr e me mb e r th e mo n th s . ” )
. Ho wev er, hi s co nfusi on, al though underst andabl e, does not am e l i or at e t h e d ou b ts rais ed by th e in c on sis te n c ies in h is tes ti m ony, l et al one com pel the IJ and the Board t o cre dithi s t est i m ony. W e a lso co n c lu d e t h at th e IJ w as on s o l id gro u n d in do ubt i ngS unda r ar aj an ’ s ac co unto fe scap in gfr o m the LTTE c a mp. I t i s t r ue tha t S un da r a r aj a n, b o th o n cro ssexam i nati on bythe gov ernm ent a nd duri ng supple

m en ta lquesti o ni ngb y the IJ, s o ft- peda l ed th e co nfi ni ng n at u re of th e c am p . A .R . 1 8 1 , 193 . B u t w h en sp ec ifica lly a s k e d b y th e IJ a s t o w h e th e r h e w a s t a k e n t o t h e c a mp ag ain sth is w ill, h e t es tifie d ex p re ss ly th at “t h ey forc ibly to o kme. ” A. R. 1 91
. He a l so t es ti fi ed th atthe peo p le who t o o kh i m h a d w e a p o n s . A
. R. 1 9 2
. Mo r e o v e r, th e c a mp w as, b y S unda r ar aj an ’ s o wn ac co unt, b o thfen ce d a nd p a t r o l l e d b y g u a r d s . A. R
. 1 8 0

- 8 1 , 3 9 6
. Un d e r t h o s e c i r c u msta n c es , t h e IJ n ot u n re aso nabl y c oncl ud ed that Sundarar aj an and other “guests” ofthe LT TE would not ha v e b e e n fr e e t o c o me a nd g o a s the y wi s he d, a nd that Sundarar aj an would not have been p er m i tte d to l eave the c a mp a t4 : 0 0 a . m. , n e v e r t o r e t urn. S un da r a r aj an hi m self d escribed hi s departure usi ng va ri ous for m s o f the word “e sc ap e,” wh i ch sugg est s that the LTT E had hi m i n i ts custo dy. A
. R. 16 5, 18 2, 19 5, 39 6. As f o r th e di sc r epa nc y be twe en S unda r ar aj an’s a sy l um ap p lica tio n an d h is t e s t i m on y re ga rd in g t h e d at e o f h is22 N o. 07

- 2512 d e p a r t u r e fr o m S r i L a n k a , th e IJ w a s b y n o me a n s c o mpel l ed to a cc eptthe e xpl an at i o n tha t th e dat e o n the ap p lica tio n w as a m ist ak e o w in g t o Su n d ar ar ajan ’s in ab ili tyt o c o ns ul t wi thhi s at to r ne y i n pe rson d uri ngthe p re parat i on o fthe appli cati on. S und ar ar aj an’ s co unsel sp eaks th e Ta m ill an gu age an d on t h e ap p li cation f orm its elf v er ified t h at it h ad be en rea d to h is c lien t in h is n at ive lan gu ag e, A .R
. 39 1, an d Su n d ar ar aja n a c kn ow ledg ed th athe ha d r ev i ewe d the a ppl i ca ti o n b efo r e si g ni ng it, A
. R
. 149-51. A s th e IJ p ointed ou t, th e d ate of his dep artu re is d isc u ss ed m or e t h an o n c e int h e ap p lica tio n, an d it con sisten tly states or i m p li es th at S u nd araraj an l eft Sri La nk a i n J ul y r a the r tha n S e pt e mbe r as h e l a t e r t e s t i fi e d, m aking it l ess li kely that Su nd a raraj an w ou ld h ave ove rloo ke d an y e rro r. A .R . 383 , 389 ; see also A.R. 3 86 ( l i st i ng hi s l astdates o fr esi dence and em plo ym en t in S riLanka as July 2006). Both the IJ and the Board ac curat el y r eci te d the go ver ni ng cri ter i a f or cre dibi l i ty deter m i nati ons, A
. R. 4, 58

- 61, and the IJ ’ s deci si on notto cr ed it Sundarar aj an, as affi rm ed by the Boa rd, i s r eas onable and consi ste nt with th e r ec o r d evi den ce . Pe r ha ps a di ffer en t f ac tfi nde r might h av e cre d ite d Su n d ar ar ajan , b u t w e ca n n ot sa y th at it w as u n re as on ab le for Ju d ge V id ela n ot t o d o s o. See B alogun v. Ashcrof

t, 374 F.3d 492 , 507-08 (7th C ir. 2004).

B. Corr obo ra ti on A fte r c on c lu d in g t h at Su n d ar ar ajan ’s a c c ou n t o f h is ex p erience s in SriLa nk a w as no t cred ibl e, th e IJ d etermi ne d tha ti twa s r e a s o nab l e t o e xp e c th i m t o p r o v i deN o. 07

- 2512 23

c o r r o b o r a t i o n o fthe e v e nt s to wh i c h he t e s t i fi e d, i ncl ud i ng so m e s or t o fst ate m ent fro m hi s wife. A
. R. 80

- 81. S unda r ar aj anha d fai l ed to s uppl y s uchc o r r o bo r at i o n, in the IJ’ s view , and that f ail ure cont ributed to the IJ ’s co nc l us i o n tha t S unda r ar aj anha d pr es en te d i ns uffici en t evi dence to support th e noti on that he w oul d be per sec u te d if re tu rn ed to Sri L a n ka . Su n d ar ar ajan fau lts th is port i on o fthe IJ ’ s a nal ysi s foro ver l oo ki ng wh at cor robor ati ve evi dence he di d prese nt t o the c ourt
. H e no tes that the UN H C R repor t a nd o therbac kgr ound evi dence he pre sente d do substa nti ate the types ofabusi ve practi ce s byb o ththe LTTE a nd S r iLa nk an autho r i ti es tha t he described i n his te st i m ony. A nd as f orsubst anti ati on o f hi s o w n al l ega ti ons, he r em i nd s us th at h e s ubm i tte d pr o o fthat a co m pl aintwas made o n h i s be ha l ft o the H um an Ri ghts Com m i ssi on o f S riLanka, a l ett erfro m Rever end Je re m i ah A ra sar athi nam , and an e xtra ct fro m a pol i ce s tation bo ok. The IJ ’ s deci si on was si l ent a s t o the se thr ee do cument s. F i na l l y, he c o nt en ds th athe adequatel y e xplained w hy he coul d not pro du ce a l ett er o r o th ere vi d en ce fr o m hi s wi fe: He t es ti fi ed th ats he had been stay i ng w i th R eve re nd A ra sar atnam in the past, but that, atthe ti m e o fthe he ar in g, sh e was m oving fro m pla ce t o pla ce in or de r to avo i d the S riLankan ar m ed forces and he d id n ot know how to reach her. Gi ve n the m o di fi ca ti o ns to the I m m i g r at i o n a nd Nat i o nal i ty A ct e ffecte d by the REA L I D A c t, an i m m i gr ati on j ud ge n ow enj oys subst anti all eeway to dem and cor robor ati on o fan a syl um appli cant’ s a l l ega ti ons w hethero r n otth e jud ge find s t h e a p p lica n t c re d i b le. Raphe al v. M uk a sey, 53 3 F
. 3d 521, 52 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. Onlyi fsuch24 N o. 07

- 2512

ev id en c e is be yo n d th e re a s o n ab le a b ility of th e im m ig r an t to o bt ain i s th e j udg e pr ec l ude d fr o m dem an di ng c or ro b or at ion . 8 U .S .C . § 12 52 (b )(4) ; E k e v. M uk a sey, 512 F.3d 372, 381 (7th Cir. 2008). W e fi nd no er ro r i n the I m m i gr ati on J ud ge’ s e xpectati on that S und ar ar aj an pro du ce a dd i ti onalev i dence to cor robor ate hi s ac c ou nt o fpast perse cuti on. W e no te that the Ju d ge’ s a dvers e cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati on was m ad e in d ep en d en t o f th e la c k of c or ro b o r a tio n ; on ly aft er h e h ad d ee m ed Su n d ar ar ajan inc re d ible

— a n d , a s we ha ve di sc us se d, that fi ndi ngwas no t er r o ne o us

— di d the j u dge l oo k f or cor robor ati on of hi s acco unt. A
. R. 80 . I t w as n ot unreas onabl e forthe j ud ge to l oo k forco rr obor atio n fro m S und ar ar aj an’ s wife in part i cul ar, gi ven th ats he w as a wi tn es s to s o m e o fthe ha r as smenta nd c oe rc ion h e a l l e g e d ly ex p er ien c ed from th e L T T E an d it w as she who al l ege d ly go t hi m o ut o fj ai li n Col om bo. A l though i t i s t rue th at Sundarar aj an se em ed to sugg est at one poi nt i n hi s t est i m ony that he di d not know how to reac h h er i n Sr iLanka, hi s t est i m ony on thi s s cor e was i nconsi ste nt, f or at othe r ti m es the cl ear i m pli cati on o f h is tes tim on y w as th at h e k n ew “w h er e a b ou t s h e [w as ],” an d c o ul d r e a c h he r, a l tho ugh o nly b y ma i l

. A. R. 1 76. Plu s, sh e had sup p li ed other evid en ce t o sup p ort Sundarar aj an’ s ca se, so i t w as not unreas onabl e t o surm i se that she c oul d h av e su bm i tte d her own st ate
m ent a t that t i m e, ev en if sh e l ate r fel lo ut o fco ntact w i th her husband. A s forthe I m m i gr ati on J ud ge’ s f ai l ure to speci fi cal l y add re ss al l of the back gr ound a nd o ther evi dence thatS und ar ar aj an di d subm i t, any om iss i on i n that re spect w as harm l ess , as the evi dence di d notN o. 07

- 2512 25 mat e r i a l l y c o r r o b o r a t e the e v e nt s to wh i c h he t e s t i fi e d. The U N H CR r epor t, f orexam ple , speak s t o the typ es of human r i g ht s ab us es tha t o cc ur i n S r iLa nk a but say s no thing ab o ut wha t di d o r di d no t ha pp e n to Su n d ar ar ajan
. See R ashiah v. A shcroft, 38 8 F
. 3d 11 26 , 11 33 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. The ev i dence as to the com pla i nt fi l ed w i th th e S r iLa nk anHum anRi g ht s Comm i ss ion s ay s no th i ng beyo nd tha ta c o mpl a i ntwa s fi l e d. A. R. 2 4 4
. T he p o l i ce re portthatSu n d araraj an’ s wife fi l ed m ake s o nl y a pas singa l l eg at i o n tha t he l eft S r iLank a due to ha r as sment si m i l art o whats he a nd he r c hi l dr enwer e ex per i en cing and does no t m eaning fully c or robor ate the eve nts t o w hich he test ified be fore the IJ. A
. R
. 235. A nd the R everend ’s lettersugg est s that he has no per sonalkno w l edge ofwh at Sundarar aj an had experi enced; m or eov er, l i ke Sundarar aj an’ s a syl um ap p licat i on, i t s ugges ts that Sund ar ar aj an l eft S riLanka in J ulyr atherthan Se ptem ber20 06. A
. R. 24 5.

C
. R e ma n d f o r h e a r i n go n p e r s e c ut i o n a s f a i l e d a s y l u msee ker S unda r ar aj anne xtar g ue s tha t the Boa r d er r ed i n de cl i ni ngt o r emand th e ca se t o the IJ wi thdi r ec ti o ns t o c o nsi derthe po ss ibi l i tytha t S unda r ar aj anmay f ac e per se cuti on a s a f ai l ed asy l um se eke r. In the st atem ent that Sundara raj an at tached t o hi s I

- 589 appli cati on f or asy l um and other re l ief, h e s tat ed that the S riLankan au th o r i ti es typ i ca l l y a r r es t atthe a i r po r t an y o ne re tu rn ed to th e c ou n tr y in vo lu n ta rily, an d th at T am il r efug ee s ha ve o fte n di sa ppea r ed whi l e i n det en ti o n atthe26 N o. 07

- 2512 air p or t. A .R . 398 . H e m a d e a sim ilar as se rt ion in h is t e s t im o ny . A
. R
. 177. A t the conc lusion of the evid en tiary he aring before the I m m igrati on Jud ge, Sun d araraj an ’s at to r ne y a r g ue d i n c l o singtha t he ha d a n inde pen den t cl ai m f o r re l i efas a f ai l ed a sy l um - se ek er . A
. R. 22 1- 23
. But th e IJ n ev er ex p licit ly a d d re ss ed th is p os sib ility in h is deci si on. Fo r i ts p ar t, the Board i n a foo tnot e ind i cate d th ati t was unn ec es sa r y f or the IJ t o do s o g i ve n the j ud ge’ s a dvers e e val uati on o fS und ar ar aj an’ s cr edibi l i ty. A
. R. 5 n. 1. S und ar ar aj an f aul ts that re aso ni ng as untenabl e, gi ven that the IJ ’ s cr edibi l i ty determ inati on r el ate d to hi s pa s t e xp e r i e nc e s i n S r i La nk a , whi c h ha v e no thingto do w i th the poss ibi l i ty that he m i ght b e persec uted f or havi ng unsuccess fully s ought asy l um i n the U ni ted S tat es. G ive n th e la c k of re c or d ev id e n c e s u p p or tin g t h is cl ai m , however, S und ar ar aj an was not enti tl ed to a he ar i ng . The o nl y e vi den ce i n the r ec o r d s uppo r ti ng th e noti on that S und ar ar aj an m i ght f ace perse cuti on a s a fai led asy lum seeke r i s h is ow n sta tem en t in sup p ort of his asylum ap p lic ation an d his testim ony at the h eari ng. Thi s e vi dence i s i tse l fm i ni m al, and Sundarar aj an neverar ticul ate d the ba si s forhi s know l edge that f ai l ed asylum seekers face arrest an d abu se up on th eir ret urn to Sr iLanka. Giv en thatthe IJ di d not cr edi t hi m as a w itn es s, t h e r e w as effe c tiv ely n o e vid en c e t o s u p p or t t h is cl ai m . And a l th o ug h S un d araraj anpo i nt s o uttha t th e Se c on d C irc u it or d er ed a h e a rin g on a sim ilar cla im in R am sam eachire v. A shcroft, 357 F.3d 169 , 1 8 4 -8 5 ( 2d Cir. 2004 ), n otw ithsta nd ing the IJ’ s ad verse cred ibi li ty d eterm i nati on, i n that case the al i en had pro ffer ed evi denceN o. 07

- 2512 27

su fficie n t t o s u p p or t t h e c laim , s e ei d. at 184. S und ar ar aj an f ai l ed to o ffersuffi ci ent e vi dence her e.

D
. P at te rn or p ra c tic e c laim As Su nd ar ar aj anpo i nt s o uta nd a s bo ththe IJ a nd the B oa rd rec og n ize d , he m ay p re va il on h is as ylu m cla im eve n w i thout cre dibl e e vi dence tha t he i s l i kel y t o be singled out for p ersecu tion ifhe can establish a p attern orp ra c tice o fper secuti on in Sr iLanka b ase d on a protect ed tr ai t ( e.g ., et h n i c i ty ) th at h e s h ar es . See 8 C. F
. R. § 2 08. 13(b) ( 2) ( i i i )
. But the l eve lo fper secuti on m ust be extr em e in or der t o dem onst ra te such a pattern orprac tic e. M itreva v. G o nz a les , 417 F .3 d 761, 765 (7th Cir. 2005). “T he re m us t be a system atic, p ervasive, or organ ized effort to ki l l, im p rison, o r seve re l y inj ure m em ber s o fthe protect ed gr oup, and thi s e ff or t m ust b e perpetr ate d or tol er ate d by s tat e a cto rs . ” Id. ( i nt erna lquo ta ti o n mar k s an d c itat i ons om i tte d). The st andard f orsho w i ng a pattern or pract i ce i s hi gh be cause i t r el i eve s th e i nd i vi du alal i en o f p re se n tin g e vid en c e t h at h e in p ar tic u lar w ou ld likely ex p er ien c e p er se c u tio n if re tu rn ed to h is c ou n tr y a n d in th eo r y woul d e nt i tl e ev ery o ne e l se f rom h is c o unt r y who be l o ng s t o the p r o t e c t e d g r o up t o a s y l um i n the Uni ted St at es . Id. The back gr ound evi dence thatS und ara raj an has subm i tte d, i ncl ud i ng i n part i cul arthe Dece m b er 20 06 U N H C Rrep or t d oc u m e n tin g t h e m ist re at m en t o f T am ils i n Sr i L an ka ( and w hi ch r eco m m ends that no Tam i lfro m the nor ther n or eas tern re gi ons of the countr y be for ced28 N o. 07

- 2512 to r etur n) g i ve s us pa us e, a s i t di d the IJ. A
. R
. 8 2. The le n g t hy arm ed confli ct bet w een the L T T E and the Sri Lankan ar m ed forces has r esul ted i n hum an r i ghts abuses bybo th si des, and ther e is l i ttl e r eas on t o doubt th ati nno ce ntTa m i l s ha ve b ee n ar r es te d, i m pr i so ne d, a nd eve n to rtured bythe author i ti es. But ourcas es m ake cl earthatcivil stri fe in a c ountr y that ca uses substa nti al h a r d s h i p s f o r a n e th n i c min o r i t y, s o me o fwh o s e me mb e r s a r e e n g a g e d i n a n i n s u r g e n c y a g a i n s tth e g o ve r nm en t, do es no t au to m at i ca l l yr en dere ac h n o n- co m ba tant m em b er of th at m in or ity a su bj ec t o f p er se c u t i o n . See S el im i v. Ashcroft, 36 0 F
. 3d 736, 74 0- 41 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04 ); see a lso R a tna sin g a m v. Ho lder, 556 F.3d 10, 14 ( 1st C ir. 2009); G a rcia v. G o nz a les , 5 00 F.3d 61 5, 618-19 (7th Cir. 2007); R ashiah v. A shcroft, sup ra , 38 8 F
. 3d at 1133
. S und ar ar aj an has s how n t h at m any Tam i l s in Sr iLanka hav e s uffer ed grave d ep rivations of th eir hu m an ri gh ts, bu t the Boa rd ’s c on c lu sio n th at th is d oe s n otrise to th e le ve l of sy st em ic perse cuti on o fTam i l s ba sed o n their e th ni ci ty w as not unreas onabl e. The bac kgr ound evi dence i n d icates that T am ils fa c e a n ex tr em ely d iff i c u l t life in Sri L an ka , bu t it do es no t r efl ec t th e ex tr eme de g r ee o fmistrea tment ne ce ss ar y t o es tabl i sha pa tt ern o r pr ac ti ce o fpe r se cut i o n. A l though we ar e deepl y c oncerned a b ou t the abuse s that have take n pl ac e i n S r iLa nk a, we ca nno t sa y tha t th e ev i den ce S unda r ar aj anha s pr es en ted i s so c o m pel l i ng as to p er m it u s t o d ist u rb th e B oa rd ’s fi n d in g t h at it does not show syst em i c per secuti on o fethnic Tam i l s l i ke him self.N o. 07

- 2512 29 E
. C A T cla im Fi nal l y, S und ar ar aj an chal l enges the sum m ary r ej ecti on of h is C A T cla im , w h i c h n e ith er th e B oa rd n or th e IJ add re sse d at a ny l ength. The IJ n ote d that because he ha d not f ound Sundarar aj an to be a cre dibl e witness, “Icannot fin d t ha t the resp ond en t has established that i t is m ore l i ke ly than notthat, i fhe i s r etur ned to Sr iLanka, fi rs t, that he would be ar re ste d by a ny on e an d, seco nd l y, that the r espondent, i n f act, afterbeing ar re ste d, w i l lbe p hy sicall y m istreated w hich w ou ld con s t itute tortu re unde r the Co nv en tion. ” A. R. 8 4. The Bo ar d a ffi r m ed th e IJ ’ s r e a s o ningo n tha tp o i nt
. A. R. 6
. S un da r a r aj an conte nd s that be cause hi s C A T c l ai m i s pre m i sed o n differ ent f acto rs than hi s as ylum cl ai m , i t was er ro r to dism i ss thi s cl ai m o ut o fhand w i thout m or e e xtensi ve an al y sis . E ve n if h is t es tim on y a b ou t h is e x p er ien c es in Sri L an ka is d isc ou n te d , Su n d ar ar ajan m ain ta in s, h e s till h as a via b le c laim u n d er t h e C A T ba se d on h is T am il eth nicity and his statu s as a fai led asy lum seeker. I n o r dert o e st ab l i shhi s el i g ibi l i tyf o r r el i efunde r the CA T, S und ar ar ajan m ust s how thati t i s m or e l i kel y than n otth at h e w ill be t or tu re d in Sr i L an ka , e . g. , Khan v. Fil ip , 554 F. 3d 681, 69 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , and subst anti alev i d ence supp or ts the Boa rd’ s dete rm i nati on that he did not m ake such a sho w i ng. The st ate m ent S und ar ar aj an at
ta ch ed to hi s as y l um a ppl i ca ti o n a nd hi s te st i m o ny bef or e the IJ suppli ed the sol e e vi denti ar y s up portf or hi s C A T cl ai m , and gi ven the IJ ’ s a dvers e cr edibi l i ty d et er m in at ion, Su n d ar ar ajan d id n otp re se n t c re d ible evi dence ei ther thathe ha d experi enced past perse cuti on30 N o. 07

- 2512 i n Sr iLanka o r that, as a f aile d a sy lum se eke r, he was l i k ely t o f ac e to r tu r e upo n hi s r etur n to tha t co unt r y . And as w e hav e a lready discu ssed w ith regard to the p attern or p r a c tic e c laim , alth ou gh T am ils h av e u n d ou b te d ly f aced se ver e har dships in Sr iLanka, the evi dence does not sup p ort the con clusi o n ba sed on Sun d araraj an ’s ethni ci ty al one that he i s m or e l i kel y than not to experi ence tor ture i n Sr iLanka.

III. T h e de c i s i o n w h e th e r t o f o l l o w th e U NH R C ’ s r e c o mm en d at ion n otto ret u rn T am ils to Sri L an ka u n til c on d iti o ns th er e i m pr o ve be l o ng s to th e Exe cut i ve Br an ch

. Our au th o r i tyi s l i m ite d t o r ev i ewi ngthe de ci si o ns o fthe I m m i gr ati on J ud ge and the BIA b ase d o n the evi dence prese nted i n thi s par ti c u lar cas e. S ubstanti alev i dence supp or ts the Boa rd’ s co nc lu sio n that Sundarar aj an does not have a wel l

- f ounded fear o fper secuti on in Sr iLanka and that he has not shown it t o b e m or e l i kel y than not he w ill b e persec uted and/orto rtured upon hi s r etur n to that countr y. W e there f or e D EN Y Sundarar aj an’ s peti ti on f orr evi ew o fthe BIA’s or de r re fu si ng hi m hi s r equests f or asy l um , re str i cti on on re m ova l, and r el i efu n der th e CA T.

4- 23- 09