Opinion ID: 3054805
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Asylum and CAT Relief

Text: To establish eligibility for asylum relief, the alien must, with specific and credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor, or (2) a well-founded fear that the statutorily listed factor will cause future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). To establish entitlement to CAT relief, the applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if 3 Case: 12-14259 Date Filed: 09/09/2013 Page: 4 of 5 returned to the proposed country of removal, by or with the acquiescence of the government. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a). Even putting aside the adverse credibility determination, the BIA did not err in denying Satkunanathan’s claims for asylum and CAT relief. First, Satkunanathan failed to show that at least one central reason for the harms he suffered was based on a protected ground. With respect to the extortion by the Karuna and the individuals at the airport, the record indicated these individuals were interested in financial gain, not in targeting Satkunanathan based on his ethnicity or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). With respect to his detainment by army authorities, Satkunanathan’s testimony indicated he was detained because he did not have proper documentation, and Satkunanthan did not adequately demonstrate that the authorities persecuted him on the basis of an imputed political opinion. Second, Satkunanathan failed to show he would be targeted on account of a protected ground if he returned to Sri Lanka. Third, Satkunanathan failed to present evidence that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to Sri Lanka, either by or with the acquiescence of the government. Accordingly, we deny Satkunanathan’s petition with respect to these claims. III. Satkunanathan’s Claim as a Tamil-Failed-Asylum-Seeker 4 Case: 12-14259 Date Filed: 09/09/2013 Page: 5 of 5 Finally, Satkunanathan claims the IJ and BIA failed to adjudicate his claim for asylum and CAT relief on account of being a Tamil-failed-asylum-seeker. However, the IJ rejected Satkunanathan’s assertions, and the BIA specifically referenced the IJ’s conclusion that potential punishment for illegal departure would not qualify Satkunanathan for protection. In light of the BIA’s conclusion that any potential punishment faced by Satkunanathan for illegal departure from Sri Lanka would not give rise to an asylum claim, as well as the detailed nature of the BIA’s decision, the BIA gave reasoned consideration to Satkunanathan’s claims. See Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny Satkunanathan’s petition. PETITION DENIED. 5