United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60036

Summary Calendar

Vanujan Sivalingam, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 679 088

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Petitioner-Appellant Vanujan Sivalingam is a native and citizen of Sri 

Lanka. He petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Immigration 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 22, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60036 Document: 00515790411 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2021
No. 20-60036

2

Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). His petition is denied. 

When, as here, there is credible testimony by the applicant, an asylum 

application may be denied for the applicant’s failure to provide reasonably

available corroborating information. Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584-85, 

587 (5th Cir. 2011). As provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4), courts are 

prohibited from “revers[ing] a determination made by a trier of fact with 

respect to the availability of corroborating evidence . . . unless the court finds 

. . . that a reasonable trier of fact is compelled to conclude that such 

corroborating evidence is unavailable.” See id. at 587. The instant record 

does not compel the conclusion that no corroborating evidence was available 

to Sivalingam. See id.; see also Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 

2012) (stating that a petitioner who does not carry his burden for asylum does 

not meet the higher standard for withholding of removal). Moreover, the 

record reflects that Sivalingam failed to demonstrate either past persecution 

or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Yang, 664 F.3d at 587.

A claim for protection under the CAT requires the alien to show “that 

it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the 

proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); see also Efe 

v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). Sivalingam fails to establish 

past persecution or torture, so his claim that he will be subjected to future 

torture is speculative. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 659 (5th Cir. 2012). 

The record does not compel the conclusion that Sivalingam will, more likely 

than not, be subjected to torture if removed to India. See Revencu v. Sessions, 

895 F.3d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 2018).

Sivalingam’s contention that the IJ was not a neutral arbiter lacks 

merit. The Due Process Clause guarantees an alien a hearing before a fair 

and impartial arbiter, and the United States Supreme Court has concluded 

Case: 20-60036 Document: 00515790411 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2021
No. 20-60036

3

that due process requires the “opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time 

and in a meaningful manner.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). During immigration 

proceedings, the IJ is authorized, in accordance with his duty to fully develop 

the record, to interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien. See 

Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052-53 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1986). The 

IJ’s questioning only violates procedural due process when it “substantially 

prejudice[s] the complaining party.” Id. at 1052. Here, the IJ questioned 

Sivalingam to facilitate his testimony as a pro se applicant. Sivalingam does 

not establish that he was substantially prejudiced by any due process 

violation.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

Case: 20-60036 Document: 00515790411 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2021