Doe v. Sessions
693 F. App'x 70
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Suvendran Kanapathipillai, a Sri Lankan national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on past persecution and fear of future persecution (as a Tamil or suspected LTTE member and as a returning asylum seeker).
- An Immigration Judge denied relief after finding the petitioner not credible; the BIA affirmed that decision on April 27, 2016.
- Key factual disputes included why Sri Lankan army targeted petitioner, inconsistent accounts of dates of incidents (petitioner, father, and brother), and limited corroboration of petitioner’s testimony.
- Petitioner also argued a separate claim that Sri Lanka has a pattern or practice of persecuting returning asylum seekers.
- The agency concluded documentary evidence of country conditions was outdated or showed only short detentions tied to illegal departure or suspected LTTE ties; petitioner failed to show systemic persecution of returnees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility finding | Kanapathipillai argued inconsistencies were minor (nervousness/confusion) and could be explained or rehabilitated with evidence | Government argued inconsistencies in reasons for targeting and dates, plus lack of corroboration, supported disbelief | Court held substantial evidence supports adverse credibility determination; IJ properly relied on inconsistencies and lack of corroboration |
| Corroboration of testimony | Kanapathipillai argued letters/medical evidence supported his account of family injuries and detention | Government argued corroboration was missing or omitted key facts (e.g., brother’s interrogation) and could not cure inconsistencies | Court held omissions and absence of corroboration justified adverse credibility; IJ considered record and omissions are relevant inconsistencies |
| Asylum based on being a returning asylum seeker (pattern or practice) | Kanapathipillai argued Sri Lanka persecutes returned asylum seekers and would know his status | Government argued country-evidence was outdated/limited and incidents were not systemic/pervasive; detentions tied to illegal-departure statutes or suspected LTTE links | Court held petitioner failed to show pattern or practice of persecution of returnees; evidence showed isolated/distinguishable incidents or short detentions |
| Claim that Sri Lanka persecutes all Tamils | Kanapathipillai argued broad persecution of Tamils supports relief | Government noted petitioner lacked credible testimony and did not raise pattern-or-practice of Tamil persecution before IJ | Court held no remand needed: petitioner was not credible on past/future harm and did not present pattern-or-practice claim to IJ |
Key Cases Cited
- Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir.) (review of IJ decision as supplemented by BIA)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (REAL ID Act totality-of-circumstances credibility review)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir.) (standards of review in immigration appeals)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (agency may rely on inconsistencies; applicant must credibly explain)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir.) (factfinder’s choice among competing inferences reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir.) (failure to corroborate may bear on credibility)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 336 (2d Cir.) (presumption IJ considered entire record)
- Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.) (claim for persecution as returning asylum seeker requires pattern-or-practice showing)
- Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.) (pattern-or-practice requires harm that is systemic/pervasive)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (adverse credibility can be dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims)