NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 18-2980 _____________ SATHEESKANNAN SENTHINATHAN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent ____________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A079-784-809) Immigration Judge: Charles M. Honeyman Submitted under L.A.R. § 34.1(a) April 5, 2019 Before: CHAGARES and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, District Judge* (Filed: April 18, 2019) ____________ OPINION ____________ * The Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. GOLDBERG, District Judge. Petitioner Satheeskannan Senthinathan, a citizen of Sri Lanka, sought and was denied admission to the United States in 2001, and since that time, has repeatedly pursued protection from removal and asylum. On August 7, 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denied his fourth motion to reopen his petition seeking asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and withholding of removal under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture. On September 6, 2018, Senthinathan filed a Petition for Review, challenging the BIA’s decision, pursuant to this Court’s jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. For the reasons set forth below, we will dismiss the petition in part and deny the petition in part. I. BACKGROUND On October 28, 2001, Senthinathan, a then 22-year-old native and citizen of Sri Lanka, attempted to enter the United States at the border at San Ysidro, California using fraudulent documents. He was denied admission and detained by United States Immigration officials. During review by an asylum officer, Senthinathan expressed a fear of persecution, which the asylum officer deemed credible and proper for referral to the San Diego Immigration Court. Senthinathan was also placed in removal proceedings for failing to possess a valid entry document and for making a willful misrepresentation of material fact in violation of Sections 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), (a)(6)(C)(i). Thereafter, on January 10, 2002, Senthinathan filed a written asylum application requesting asylum based on race, nationality, membership in a particular social group, and political opinion. 2 On August 8, 2003, the Immigration Judge denied Senthinathan’s application, finding that “[g]iven [Senthinathan’s] admitted perjury regarding his travel to the United States, the internal inconsistencies in [Senthinathan’s] testimony not related to such travel, and the lack of easily obtainable corroborating evidence, the Court cannot find that [Senthinathan] has given credible testimony in this case.” AR 1421. The Immigration Judge concluded that “[Senthinathan] is not eligible for asylum, as he has failed to present credible testimony to support his claim of past or future persecution by the Sri Lankan security forces, and his fear of the Tamil Tigers [a terrorist organization], though objectively evident, is not on the basis of a prescribed ground.” Id. The Immigration Judge also determined that because Senthinathan’s testimony was ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals