Thamotharam Thayalan v. Attorney General United States, 997 F.3d 132

Background

Thamotharam Pillai Thayalan, a Sri Lankan national, was apprehended entering the U.S. in July 2019 and sought asylum and withholding of removal.
He testified that in 2007 (age ~16) Sri Lankan army members kidnapped, blindfolded, detained him ~2 hours, hit his head and punched his stomach; he did not seek medical care and remained in Sri Lanka for years afterward.
He also testified that in March–April 2019 members of the Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) phoned and later threatened him at his store to extort money, accusing him of paying the rival Tamil National Alliance (TNA); he fled temporarily but the EPDP did not pursue him to Colombo.
The IJ found Thayalan credible and corroborated but denied relief: the 2007 incident did not rise to persecution; the 2019 extortion was motivated by money, not an imputed political opinion; internal relocation was reasonable.
The BIA affirmed the IJ. Thayalan petitioned the Third Circuit, which reviewed for substantial evidence and denied the petition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2007 detention/beating by the Sri Lankan army constituted past persecution (triggering a presumption of future persecution).	The 2007 detention and physical abuse amounted to past persecution; a single sufficiently egregious incident can qualify.	The abuse was a brief, isolated incident without serious/protracted injury or ongoing threats; thus it did not rise to persecution.	Court upheld agency: substantial evidence supports finding no past persecution.
Whether the 2019 EPDP extortion attempts create a reasonable possibility of future persecution on account of an imputed pro‑TNA political opinion (nexus).	EPDP statements accusing him of supporting TNA show they targeted him for an imputed political opinion.	EPDP targeted him for money because he was a businessman perceived to have funds; they never demanded he stop supporting TNA or showed animus toward TNA supporters.	Court upheld agency: substantial evidence supports that the dominant motive was extortion for money, not persecution on account of an imputed political opinion.
Whether the IJ/BIA erred by not analyzing a pattern‑or‑practice claim (8 C.F.R. §1208.13(b)(2)(iii)).	The regulation requires consideration of pattern/practice even if not argued below.	Thayalan did not raise a pattern‑or‑practice claim before the IJ; BIA properly declined to consider the issue on appeal.	Court agreed with BIA: issue unpreserved and no error in declining to remand for pattern‑or‑practice analysis.

Key Cases Cited

Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020) (agency factual findings binding unless no reasonable adjudicator could reach them)
Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2003) (explaining substantial‑evidence review of agency factual findings)
Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607 (3d Cir. 2005) (discussion of past‑persecution standard and program/campaign evidence)
Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2004) (single, nonserious altercation without medical treatment may not constitute persecution)
Kibinda v. Att'y Gen., 477 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2007) (brief detention and limited injury did not rise to persecution absent other evidence)
Doe v. Att'y Gen., 956 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2020) (a single, sufficiently egregious beating with life‑threatening threats can constitute persecution; BIA erred to treat single incidents as per se insufficient)
INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (nexus requirement and high burden to overturn agency credibility/factual findings)
Gonzalez‑Posadas v. Att'y Gen., 781 F.3d 677 (3d Cir. 2015) ("one central reason" standard for nexus; incidental motivations are insufficient)