Kanapathippillai Thayaparan v. Jeff Sessions
688 F. App'x 359
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Kanapathippillai Thayaparan, a Sri Lankan Tamil, arrived in the U.S. without documents in 2015, claimed fear of return, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- Thayaparan's claims relied principally on five alleged incidents (1993, 1996, 2009, 2014, 2015) involving arrest, detention, beatings, and threats by Sri Lankan security/intelligence forces, plus an arrest warrant issued under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) after he left Sri Lanka.
- At the merits hearing he was the sole witness; the IJ found him not credible based on inconsistencies and omissions across his testimony, credible-fear interview, and documentary evidence, and denied relief on credibility and country‑condition grounds.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the adverse credibility finding and rejected claims of a pattern-or-practice of persecution of Tamils and of persecution as a “failed asylum seeker,” and it did not meaningfully address the PTA arrest-warrant evidence.
- On review, the Sixth Circuit upheld the adverse credibility determination as supported by substantial evidence but concluded the Agency failed to give reasoned consideration to country‑condition evidence, the arrest warrant, and the failed‑asylum‑seeker evidence, and therefore vacated and remanded those aspects for further analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility determination | Inconsistencies are minor, due to trauma and memory over decades; testimony should be credited | Inconsistencies and omissions (1993, 1996, 2015) and contradictions with documentary statements undermine credibility | Court: Agency’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence under the REAL ID Act and is upheld |
| Transferring credibility to unrelated events | Credibility problems limited to certain incidents; other incidents (2009, 2014) are independent and should be considered separately | Adverse finding covered testimony about overall Sri Lanka experiences and may be applied broadly under REAL ID Act | Court: Agency permissibly applied adverse credibility to petitioner’s overall testimony; upheld |
| Future persecution / pattern or practice against Tamils | Country‑condition reports and human‑rights documentation show ongoing, systematic abuses against Tamils; arrest warrant and reports support individualized and group‑based future fear | Government’s country‑condition evidence rebuts a well‑founded fear; petitioner periodically relocated and family remained in country | Court: Agency failed to give reasoned consideration to much of petitioner’s country evidence and the PTA arrest warrant; remand required to reassess future‑persecution and withholding claims |
| Failed‑asylum‑seeker claim and CAT relief | Returned/failed asylum seekers (many Tamils) face detention, torture and abuse; petitioner is similarly situated to those returned | Board: Petitioner did not show he is similarly situated to returned asylum seekers | Court: Evidence plausibly supports failed‑asylum‑seeker risk; Board did not adequately address it—remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2005) (court’s jurisdiction to review BIA final decisions)
- Marouf v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 174 (6th Cir. 2016) (substantial‑evidence review requires a hard look at agency credibility findings)
- El‑Moussa v. Holder, 569 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 2009) (REAL ID Act permits adverse credibility findings based on any inconsistency)
- Slyusar v. Holder, 740 F.3d 1068 (6th Cir. 2014) (exercise due care evaluating inconsistencies; REAL ID Act allows reliance on ancillary inconsistencies)
- Gaksakuman v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 767 F.3d 1164 (11th Cir. 2014) (remand where BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to evidence that failed asylum seekers face detention and torture)