Opinion ID: 203835
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Asylum and Other Claims for Relief: Credibility Determination

Text: Whether Balachandran has met his burden of proving eligibility for relief is a question of fact, which we review under the substantial evidence standard. Ratnasingam, 556 F.3d at 13. We will reverse the BIA's findings only if `any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.' Budiono v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir.2008) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). The substantial evidence standard also applies to the BIA's determination regarding the availability of corroborating evidence and the effect of non-production. Chhay v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.2008). Balachandran argues that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ's conclusion that he failed to provide adequate corroboration. The REAL ID Act provides that an IJ can require corroboration, even if a petitioner gives credible testimony, and that such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence. REAL ID Act § 101(a)(3), 119 Stat. at 303 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)). The IJ said she was not expecting somebody from Sri Lanka to send a letter and correctly noted that it was reasonable to expect Balachandran to secure corroboration from his family in Canada. Balachandran testified that he was in contact with his Canadian relatives (in fact, they helped to arrange for his initial lawyer) and that they were aware of what had happened to him in Sri Lanka. He also testified that they communicated with his Sri Lankan family through a telephone owned by neighbors in Sri Lanka. Balachandran was represented by counsel while he obtained documentation in support of his asylum application, and he obtained two continuances from the IJ to enable him to prepare his application. He submitted official documents from Sri Lanka, showing both that he was able to obtain corroborating items from his relatives and that he was aware of the need to provide documentation in support of his application. [2] Finally, Balachandran challenges the BIA's determination that he did not qualify for protection under the CAT. [3] He argues the BIA erred in finding that the Sri Lankan government did not acquiesce in the torture. The BIA did not base its conclusion on the lack of governmental acquiescence in torture; rather, it held that Balachandran had failed to establish a likelihood of his being tortured with government acquiescence as is required for CAT protection. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.18(a)(1). The BIA's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. Although Balachandran provided documentary evidence regarding general country conditions, Balachandran's CAT claim was, like his asylum claim, based primarily on his uncorroborated testimony and not credible. The record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. See Khan v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 55, 58 (1st Cir.2008) (upholding denial of CAT claim where claim depended on the same uncorroborated testimony underlying asylum claim); see also Ratnasingam, 556 F.3d at 15 (upholding denial of CAT claim, based in part on country conditions, by Sri Lankan Tamil). The petition for review is denied.