USCA11 Case: 21-10487 Date Filed: 10/14/2022 Page: 1 of 28 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10487 ____________________ PRASATH NAVARATHNASINGAM, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A213-541-178 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-10487 Date Filed: 10/14/2022 Page: 2 of 28 2 Opinion of the Court 21-10487 Before LUCK, BRASHER, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Prasath Navarathnasingam petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s dismissal of his appeal of the immigration judge’s order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. He ar- gues that the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence. He also argues that the im- migration judge erred in concluding that he didn’t corroborate his claims, show a pattern or practice of persecution, and establish eli- gibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we deny Navarathnasingam’s petition. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Navarathnasingam’s Application Navarathnasingam is an ethnic Tamil and a native and citi- zen of Sri Lanka. He entered the United States in 2020 without valid immigration documents, and the Department of Homeland Security served him with a notice to appear before an immigration judge, charging him with being removable. Navarathnasingam conceded removability and the immigration judge sustained the charge. He then filed an application for asylum, withholding of re- moval, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Navarathnasingam alleged in his application that he feared he would be persecuted, tortured, and murdered by the Sri Lankan USCA11 Case: 21-10487 Date Filed: 10/14/2022 Page: 3 of 28 21-10487 Opinion of the Court 3 government because of his Tamil ethnicity if removed to Sri Lanka.1 He wrote that he had been detained and tortured by the Sri Lankan miliary for long periods of time because they mis- takenly thought he was a member of a Tamil separatist group known as the “Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam,” or “Tamil Ti- gers.” Specifically, Navarathnasingam alleged that the Sri Lankan military detained him from 2009 to 2015 and tortured him with burns, ice and heat, repeated beatings, food deprivation, sexual har- assment, and electric shock. The military released him in 2015 on the condition that he would not travel, seek medical treatment, or tell anyone about what happened during the detention. Nava- rathnasingam alleged that the military constantly monitored him and sporadically detained him and tortured him after his initial re- lease. Unable to seek medical treatment, he treated his pain with ayurvedic medicine, oil, turmeric powder, and hot water when he returned home. 1 “The asylum statute provides a list of five protected grounds: ‘race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, [and] political opinion.’” Lingeswaran v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 969 F.3d 1278, 1287 n.11 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals