Opinion ID: 4555654
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Immigration Court and BIA Proceedings

Text: The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Lingeswaran’s claims and ordered his removal to Sri Lanka. With regard to his asylum claim, the IJ found that the evidence showed that the Sri Lankan army interrogated Lingeswaran on account of his possible involvement with a terrorist organization and not on account of a protected ground. Moreover, the IJ concluded that the Sri Lankan army’s treatment of Lingeswaran did not rise to the level of persecution. The IJ further found that Lingeswaran did not show that he had a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned because the Sri Lankan civil war ended in 2009 and his 6 Case: 18-13489 Date Filed: 08/13/2020 Page: 7 of 29 family appeared to be living there safely now. And because Lingeswaran had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution that qualified for asylum, he also necessarily fell short of carrying his burden for the higher standard required for withholding of removal. The IJ concluded that Lingeswaran’s CAT claim failed because “there [wa]s no objective evidence in the file” that the Sri Lankan government would specifically target him. Rather, the evidence showed that the Sri Lankan government was “trying to take every measure that they can to get the country back on track” and no longer supported the mistreatment of Tamils. Lingeswaran appealed to the BIA. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s decision regarding Lingeswaran’s CAT claim and with the IJ’s determinations on the issues of past persecution and well-founded fear of being singled out for persecution underlying Lingeswaran’s asylum claim. But the BIA held that remand was necessary because the IJ had failed to consider the remaining issue underlying Lingeswaran’s asylum claim: whether Lingeswaran had established a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a pattern or practice of persecuting Tamils. On remand, the IJ determined that there was not a pattern or practice of persecution of Tamils in Sri Lanka.8 The IJ observed that the country background materials submitted by the parties showed that Tamils face discrimination and 8 The IJ incorporated his 2017 decision and noted that he had considered the admitted evidence in its entirety. 7 Case: 18-13489 Date Filed: 08/13/2020 Page: 8 of 29 harassment in Sri Lanka. But although the Sri Lankan government “has been slow to implement change,” the IJ found that “the government has continued to improve the situation for Tamils since the war ended in 2009.” The IJ emphasized that the Sri Lankan government has established the “Office of National Unity and Reconciliation” to protect the rights of all citizens and heal communities affected by the war. Further, the IJ noted that “the Sri Lankan Prime Minister [publicly] stated that Sri Lanka will not prosecute Sri Lankan asylum seekers who left the country illegally.” The IJ observed, “[i]f the Sri Lankan government is not prosecuting returning asylum seekers and is not imputing those returning to Sri Lanka to be LTTE members, this evidence makes it less likely that the government is persecuting Tamils.” Accordingly, the IJ found that Lingeswaran did not qualify for asylum. On appeal, the BIA sympathized with Lingeswaran: “We have no wish to minimize the suffering of ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka, and we understand why the respondent does not wish to return to that country.” 9 But it upheld the IJ’s decision because the IJ’s factual findings did not reveal that “the mistreatment of ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka is [] so extreme and pervasive as to establish a ‘pattern or practice’ of persecution, such that we can say all Tamils qualify for asylum and 9 As an initial matter, the BIA noted that its prior decision affirming the IJ’s denial of CAT protection and asylum insofar as Lingeswaran claimed an individualized fear of persecution was the law of the case; thus, the BIA would not “revisit” those determinations. 8 Case: 18-13489 Date Filed: 08/13/2020 Page: 9 of 29 withholding of removal in the United States, whether or not they have a particularized fear of persecution.” This petition for review followed.