Case: 20-60934 Document: 00516582389 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 19, 2022 No. 20-60934 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Thelipananthan Sivalingam, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 573 050 Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* In this immigration case, the petitioner argues he is entitled to relief from removal because the Board of Immigration Appeals erred when it evaluated his credibility, denied him a continuance to allow gathering more evidence, faulted him for the absence of corroboration of some of his claims, and failed to provide a better translator so he could understand the proceedings. We conclude there was no error and DENY his petition. * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 20-60934 Document: 00516582389 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2022 No. 20-60934 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Thelipananthan Sivalingam, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, applied for asylum and withholding of removal, asserting, as relevant now, that he was persecuted on account of his race and political opinion; he also sought protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Sivalingam testified in the hearing about two incidents in which he was detained by the “Army CID” 1 and beaten. He asserted his targeting was on account of his suspected membership in the Tamil Liberation Tigers, but he denied being a member. Sivalingam received medical treatment for the injuries suffered during his detentions. Sivalingam’s assertions included that he had a well-founded fear of a “pattern or practice of persecution” because he is a Tamil. He also claimed that he would face persecution on account of imputed political opinion as a failed asylum seeker. The immigration judge (IJ) determined that, under the totality of the circumstances, Sivalingam was not a credible witness. The IJ based her credibility finding on Sivalingam’s evasive, incomplete answers to questions and his demeanor; the IJ also identified a specific inconsistency in Sivalingam’s account. Further, the IJ faulted Sivalingam for failing to provide corroborating evidence of his claim, such as records of his medical treatments. Based on the adverse credibility determination, as well as on a determination that the alleged harms did not rise to the level of persecution, the IJ determined that Sivalingam did not establish past persecution. The IJ 1 In another case in which an alien claimed persecution in Sri Lanka and was represented by the same attorney who represents Sivalingam, this court’s opinion stated that “CID” stands for the Criminal Investigation Department of the Sri Lanka Police. Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 590 (5th Cir. 2021). 2 Case: 20-60934 Document: 00516582389 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/19/2022 No. 20-60934 also determined that Sivalingam did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a protected ground. The IJ denied asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ denied CAT protection based in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals