Case: 19-15066 Date Filed: 09/25/2020 Page: 1 of 18 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-15066 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A215-765-773 SINTHUSAN SRIKANTHAVASAN, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (September 25, 2020) Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-15066 Date Filed: 09/25/2020 Page: 2 of 18 Sinthusan Srikanthavasan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s decision to dismiss his appeal of the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss his petition in part and deny it in part. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Srikanthavasan is a native and citizen of Sri Lanka. He entered the United States by swimming across the Rio Grande and was immediately detained. The government charged Srikanthavasan with being removable. Srikanthavasan conceded removability and filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. He alleged that he feared persecution and torture if removed to Sri Lanka because of his Tamil ethnicity, political opinions, and membership in the particular social groups of Tamil returned asylum seekers and witnesses to crime. Srikanthavasan’s application was based on two incidents. First, he alleged that the Sri Lankan police were looking for him because he had witnessed a police shooting. Second, Srikanthavasan alleged that five Sinhalese men beat him after trying to steal his motorcycle. In support of his application, Srikanthavasan submitted multiple human rights reports and news articles discussing ongoing torture in Sri Lanka and describing the shooting he had witnessed. 2 Case: 19-15066 Date Filed: 09/25/2020 Page: 3 of 18 An immigration judge held a hearing on Srikanthavasan’s application. After the immigration judge questioned Srikanthavasan about the two incidents mentioned in his application, Srikanthavasan’s attorney stated that she wanted to ask him “some” questions. The immigration judge told her to ask a “few” because she had already “submitted substantial documentation.” Srikanthavasan’s attorney then questioned him at length and ended her examination by saying “[t]hat’s all.” As to the first incident, Srikanthavasan testified that he was afraid the Sri Lankan police would torture him because he had witnessed several officers shoot two students. Although Srikanthavasan did not report what he saw, the police “somehow” found out that he was a witness. Srikanthavasan believed the police wanted to harm him because his account of the incident contradicted the official narrative of an accidental shooting. The police had already seized his friend, who also witnessed the shooting and was still missing. But Srikanthavasan conceded that he lived with his uncle after the shooting in a different city for eighteen months without incident. He also admitted that his parents told the police he was in India and the authorities believed them. Srikanthavasan acknowledged that the police had detained him at the airport as he left the country but let him depart after ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals