634 F. App'x 23
2d Cir.2015Background
- Petitioners Hettiarachchige Vidya Peiris and Chami Dilanka Peiris Polwattage, Sri Lankan nationals, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in the U.S.
- IJ denied relief on credibility grounds; BIA affirmed; petitioners appealed to the Second Circuit.
- The appellate review focused on the agency’s adverse credibility determination as modified by the BIA.
- Agency relied on multiple implausibilities and inconsistencies in testimony: (1) Peiris claimed her husband was suspected of supporting a terrorist group despite later working for Sri Lanka’s foreign ministry; (2) Peiris gave varying explanations for not seeking asylum in Austria and the U.K.; (3) Petitioners gave conflicting accounts of a 2008 incident when army officers entered their home (Peiris said soldiers held her son at gunpoint; Polwattage said he was asleep and learned of the visit later).
- IJ rejected explanations offered to reconcile inconsistencies (e.g., claim that army and foreign ministry do not communicate).
- The adverse credibility finding was dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief because all claims rested on the same factual predicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence | Peiris: Inconsistent testimony about asylum-seeking abroad and incident details is immaterial or explainable; working at foreign ministry does not render claim implausible | Government: Inconsistencies and implausibilities undermine credibility; explanations not believable | Held: Substantial evidence supports adverse credibility finding; denial affirmed |
| Whether implausibility that husband was suspected of terrorist support (given Peiris later worked for foreign ministry) was reasonable to consider | Peiris: Employment with foreign ministry undermines suspicion of association with terrorists, so claim is plausible | Government: The employment raises implausibility and undermines account | Held: Court upheld agency’s use of that implausibility in credibility determination |
| Whether inconsistent reasons for not seeking asylum in Austria/UK fatally undermine credibility | Peiris: Decisions not to apply abroad are immaterial to U.S. asylum eligibility | Government: Multiple, varying explanations support implausibility | Held: Inconsistent explanations reasonably supported agency’s adverse credibility ruling |
| Whether conflicting accounts of 2008 home-entry incident permit granting relief | Peiris/Polwattage: Their differing recollections do not negate core claim of persecution | Government: Direct inconsistency between their testimonies weakens the factual predicate | Held: Inconsistency supported discrediting both; claims denied as all relief hinged on credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing credibility determinations)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir.) (applicable standards of review)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (REAL ID Act credibility framework; totality of circumstances)
- Ming Xia Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.) (review standard for implausibility findings)
- Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63 (2d Cir.) (implausibility findings must be tethered to record evidence)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (deference to IJ credibility findings)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir.) (inconsistencies between witnesses support adverse credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (relationship between credibility findings and inability to prove pattern-or-practice claims)