N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SUNALI R

ASIKA W EER

ASEKAR A, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73468 Age n c y No. A097-762-993 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2014 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PREGER SON, PAEZ, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. 1. W e have jurisdic tion to re vie w the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de te rm i nation tha

t “ e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s” did not e xc use Suna li W e e ra se ka

ra ’ s untim e ly

a sy lum a pplic ation, be c a

u se the fa c ts unde rly ing he r untim e l y filing a re undispute d. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a)(2)(D); Viridiana v. Holde r , 646 F.3d 1230, 1234 (9th C ir. 2011). 

# FIL E D JUL 25 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pa ge 2 of 3

The B IA e rre d in c onc luding tha t W e e ra se k ara ’ s m e nta l he a lth proble m s did not a m ount to e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta

nc e s “ d ire c tly

re late d ” to W e e ra se ka

ra ’ s fa ilure to tim e ly

file . 8 C . F.R . § 208.4(a)(5). The B IA re a sone d tha t be c a use W e e ra se ka

ra wa s e ve ntua lly

a ble to filefor a sy lum

de spite he r untre ate d m e nta l illne ss, shec ould ha

ve a pplie d e arlie r, notwithsta

nding tha t illne ss. B ut a pe titione r ne e d not show tha t a n illne ss or disa

bility inc a pa c ita te d he r in orde r to show e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s. R athe r, she ne e d only show thede la

y is

“ dire c tly re late d” to theillne ss or disa bility . Id. W e e ra se ka

ra subm itte d unc onte s te d e vide nc e from he r psy c hologist, who sta te d tha t it wa s “ highly

like ly ” W e e ra se ka

ra ’ s fa ilure to tim e ly

file wa s the re sult of he r ina bility to disc uss the tra um at ic e ve nts tha

t form e d the ba sis of he r a sy lum a pplic at ion. The fa c t tha

t W e e ra se ka

ra wa s e ve ntua lly

a ble to disc uss thosee ve nts is irre le va nt to whe the r she wa s a ble to disc uss the m

at a n e a rlie r date . W e e ra s e ka

ra ’ s m e nta l illne ss c onstitute d e xtra ordina ry c i rc um sta

nc e s a nd those c irc um sta

nc e s we re dire c t ly

re late d to he r fa ilure to tim e ly file he r a sy lum a pplic ation. W e re m and to theB IA to de te rm ine whe the r the de la y in filing wa s

“ re a sona ble unde r the c irc um sta

nc e s.” 8 C .F.R . § 208.4(a)(5); se ealso W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1057 (9th C ir. 2009).Pa ge 3 of 3

2. As to withholding of re m ova l, the B IA e rre d in fa iling to ta ke into a c c ount W e e ra se ka

ra ’ s psy c hologic a l injurie s a s pa rt of its pa st pe rse c ution ana ly sis. TheB IA sta

te d t hat W e e ra se k ara

“ wa s not signific a

nt ly injure d” a s a re sult of thee ve nts unde rly i ng he r withholding c la im . W e e ra se k ara did not e xpe rie nc e signific ant phy sic a l injurie s, but shedid e xpe rie nc e post-tra um atic stre ss. “ Pe rse c ution m ay

be e m otiona l or psy c hologic a l , a s we ll a s phy sic a l.” Mashiri v . Ashc roft , 383 F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th C ir. 2004). TheB IA de c line d to c onside r W e e ra se ka

ra ’ s psy c hologic a l injurie s be c a use “ he r m e nta l he a lth proble m s pre c e de d he r politic a l involve m e nt.” W e e ra s e ka ra ’ s de pre ssion pre c e d e d he r politic a l involve m e nt, but her post-tra um atic stre ss did not. W e re m and to the B IA to re c onside r W e e ra se ka ra ’ s withholding c la im

in light of her psy c hologic a l injurie s. 3. The B IA did not err in finding tha t W e e ra se k ara

fa ile d to show tha

t “ it is m ore like ly

tha n not” tha t she would betorture d upon re turn to Sri La nka . 8 C .F.R . § 208.16(c )(2). W e e ra se ka ra pre se nte d

som e e vide nc e tha

t torture oc c urs in Sri Lanka , but she did not offe r e vide nc e tha t she is like ly

to be ta rge te d or tha

t torture is use d a ga inst m e m

be rs of he r politic a l pa

rty . Se eW

ak k ary , 558 F.3d a

t 1068. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D in par t, DE NIE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts.