10-4917-ag
Dharmaratne v. Holder
BIA
Straus, IJ
A094 816 655/656/657
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 20th day of August, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.*
_______________________________________
KESHARA ANURUDDHA DHARMARATNE, YAMUNA
SHANTHI WALPOLA, KESHYA KADHALI
DHARMARATNE,
Petitioners,
v. 10-4917-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
*
The Honorable Roger J. Miner, originally a member
of the panel, died on February 18, 2012. The two
remaining members of the panel, who are in agreement,
have determined the matter. See 28 U.S.C. 46(d); 2d.
Cir. IOP E(b); United States v. Desimone, 140 F.3d 457
(2d Cir. 1998).
FOR PETITIONERS: Glenn T. Terk, Wethersfield,
Connecticut.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant
Director; Christina Bechak
Parascandola, Trial Attorney, Office
of Immigration Litigation, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington
D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioners Keshara Anuruddha Dharmaratne, Yamuna
Shanthi Walpola, and Keshya Kadhali Dharmaratne, natives and
citizens of Sri Lanka, seek review of a November 8, 2010,
decision of the BIA affirming the November 20, 2008,
decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus
denying Keshara Anuruddha Dharmaratne’s application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Keshara Anuruddha
Dharmaratne, Yamuna Shanthi Walpola, Keshya Kadhali
Dharmaratne, Nos. A094 816 655/656/657 (B.I.A. Nov. 8,
2010), aff’g Nos. A094 816 655/656/657 (Immigr. Ct. Hartford
Nov. 20, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
2
Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
2008). The applicable standards of review are well-
established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia
Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For
asylum applications, such as this one, governed by the REAL
ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of the
circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and
inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether
they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination. In finding Keshara not credible,
the agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between his
asylum application, asylum interview, and hearing testimony
regarding his claim that he was threatened by members of the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67.
Moreover, a reasonable fact finder would not be compelled to
credit Keshara’s explanation for these inconsistencies. See
3
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). The
agency also reasonably relied on implausible aspects of
Keshara’s testimony in reaching its adverse credibility
determination. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168-69
(2d Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, because Keshara based his claims for
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief on the same
factual predicate that the agency found not credible, all of
his claims necessarily fail. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4