Karooshan Lingeswaran v. U.S. Attorney General
969 F.3d 1278
| 11th Cir. | 2020Background
- Petitioner Karooshan Lingeswaran, a 26-year-old ethnic Tamil from Jaffna, Sri Lanka, was interdicted by the U.S. Coast Guard in February 2017 after entering the U.S. illegally.
- During Sri Lanka’s civil war, his family lived in LTTE-controlled areas; his father was previously abducted and the family had multiple LTTE connections; in 2009 his father was taken by the army and disappeared.
- In 2009 military interrogations of Lingeswaran (while civilians were processed at a camp) included beatings and threats based on suspicion of LTTE involvement; he later fled Sri Lanka, sought asylum in France (denied), and then traveled toward the U.S.
- Lingeswaran’s brother was arrested and tortured in 2015 upon returning to Sri Lanka and reported that the military warned the family that Karooshan’s name was on an airport list.
- The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed most rulings, remanded one issue (pattern-or-practice fear), and ultimately upheld denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT. This petition for review was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether past mistreatment was persecution on account of a protected ground | Lingeswaran: military targeted him (at least in part) because he is Tamil or imputed to hold LTTE political opinion | Govt: military interrogated him for suspected LTTE/terrorist involvement, not because of a protected ground | BIA/IJ reasonable: record shows motive was investigation of suspected terrorist ties, not a protected ground; affirmed |
| Whether he has an individualized, well‑founded fear of future persecution | Lingeswaran: brother’s 2015 arrest and alleged warning show individualized risk; his name is on a list | Govt: evidence is uncorroborated, inconsistent, and does not show current targeting | Court: petitioner failed to show objective, reasonable individualized risk; affirmed |
| Whether there is a pattern or practice of persecution against Tamils making future fear reasonable | Lingeswaran: country‑condition evidence shows ongoing pervasive mistreatment of Tamils | Govt: post‑war reforms and reconciliation efforts show abuse is not now a pattern or practice | Substantial evidence supports BIA/IJ that mistreatment is not so extreme/pervasive post‑war to establish pattern or practice; affirmed |
| Whether petitioner qualifies for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) | Lingeswaran: government still tortures Tamils and would acquiesce to torture of him | Govt: post‑war investigative mechanisms, arrests, and policy changes show government does not acquiesce to torture | Court: record does not compel finding of likelihood of torture by or with government acquiescence; CAT relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- D‑Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for BIA legal conclusions)
- Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (substantial‑evidence test for BIA factual findings)
- Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (agency findings supported if reasonable, substantial, probative evidence exists)
- Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005) (asylum well‑founded fear standard and subjective/objective components)
- Mehmeti v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2009) (pattern or practice discussion for withholding claims)
- Perlera‑Escobar v. Exec. Office for Immigration, 894 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1990) (acts in civil war lack political significance absent motive showing)
- Recinos v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 566 F.3d 965 (11th Cir. 2009) (affirm BIA when record could support or contradict agency)
- Jean‑Pierre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 500 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2007) (CAT statutory framework and standard)
- Reyes‑Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2004) (government not deemed to acquiesce where it actively combats alleged torture)
- Mohammed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 547 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2008) (IJ must consider but need not credit all documentary evidence)
- Kho v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2007) (rejecting Ninth Circuit’s "disfavored group" test)