Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17f4th586

Arulnanthy, a Sri Lankan Tamil, entered the U.S. illegally in Sept. 2018 after leaving Sri Lanka in June 2018 and was detained and given a credible-fear interview.
In the credible-fear interview he reported CID encounters tied to his political activity: Jan. 3 (taken to CID and beaten) and May 19 (CID visited home and spoke with his mother). The officer found credible fear.
His I-589 and later IJ testimony added or altered details: he said he went voluntarily to CID on Jan. 3, later described a May 10 CID visit (not mentioned earlier), and testified CID personally threatened him on May 19 (contradicting the credible-fear account).
The IJ found Arulnanthy not credible based on three specific discrepancies/omissions and discounted corroboration; the BIA affirmed the credibility ruling and declined to evaluate country-conditions evidence, denying relief.
Arulnanthy was removed to Sri Lanka (Jan. 28, 2020). The Fifth Circuit held the petition not moot (collateral consequences), upheld the adverse-credibility finding and denial of asylum, but remanded the CAT claim because the BIA failed to consider country-conditions evidence.

Issue	Arulnanthy's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction / Mootness	Removal moots petition	Removal does not moot where collateral legal consequences exist	Not moot — removal triggers statutory inadmissibility period, so reviewable
Validity of adverse-credibility finding	Discrepancies arose from interview format and not probative; credible-fear worksheet unreliable	Discrepancies and omission are specific, cogent, and go to the heart of his claim	Upheld: substantial evidence supports IJ/BIA credibility finding
Effect of adverse credibility on asylum	Even if some objective facts remain, asylum can be based on country conditions and non-testimonial evidence	Adverse credibility forecloses subjective fear and thus asylum absent credible testimony	Held for Government: adverse finding (absent limiting specification) operates broadly and defeats subjective-fear requirement for asylum
BIA’s treatment of CAT claim / country-conditions evidence	BIA should have considered submitted country-conditions reports despite adverse credibility	Adverse credibility can be dispositive if no independent non-testimonial evidence exists	Remand for BIA: error to refuse consideration of country-conditions evidence on CAT claim; BIA must evaluate likelihood of torture on remand

Tibakweitira v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 905 (5th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for BIA and IJ rulings)
Mendoza-Flores v. Rosen, 983 F.3d 845 (5th Cir. 2020) (removal ordinarily moots petition absent collateral consequences)
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (credibility analysis and global effect of adverse credibility finding)
Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2017) (requirements for specific, cogent credibility reasons)
Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2018) (use of credible-fear interview in credibility findings)
Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2019) (distinguishing cases where country reports fail to independently establish relief)
Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 2018) (well-founded fear requires subjective and objective components)
Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 2012) (adverse credibility can foreclose CAT relief when no independent evidence supports claim)
Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2002) (caution against overreliance on adverse credibility in CAT context)
INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (remand to agency for consideration of evidence and factfinding)