12-316
Kankanam-Pathiranage v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A087 785 474
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 Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 22nd day of May, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT:
RALPH K. WINTER,
JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
CHARITHA SHAMJAYASENA
KANKANAM-PATHIRANAGE,
Petitioner,
v. 12-316
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New York,
NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Daniel E. Goldman,
Senior Litigation Counsel; Jem C.
Sponzo, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States 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.
Charitha Shamjayasena Kankanam-Pathiranage, a native
and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of a December 27,
2011, decision of the BIA, which affirmed the June 15, 2010,
decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson. In
her June 15, 2010 decision, the IJ denied Kankanam-
Pathiranage’s applications for asylum and withholding of
removal, but granted relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). In re Charitha Shamjayasena Kankanam-
Pathiranage, No. A087 785 474 (B.I.A. Dec. 27, 2011), aff’g
No. A087 785 474 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 15, 2010). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan
Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). "The
‘substantial evidence’ standard of review applies, and we
2
uphold the IJ’s factual findings if they are supported by
‘reasonable, substantial and probative evidence in the
record.’" See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
The agency reasonably found that Kankanam-Pathiranage
had failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted
on account of his membership in a particular social group,
which he defines as former substance abusers who are
prominent Christian missionaries. To establish eligibility
for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate that the
persecution he suffered or fears was or would be on account
of a protected ground, which includes a particular social
group, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), and that his protected
status, and not some other factor, is a “central reason” why
he was or will be targeted for persecution, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B). To prevail on his application for
withholding of removal, Kankanam-Pathiranage must make a
similar showing. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b).
Here, substantial evidence supported the BIA’s
conclusion that Kankanam-Pathiranage’s status as a Christian
missionary did not cause him to face a threat of
persecution. Kankanam-Pathiranage’s claim for relief
3
centered on three events: a threat he received from an
anonymous caller demanding that he stop working as a
Christian missionary, solicitations by a drug dealer to
participate in his business, and Kankanam-Pathiranage’s
arrest and abuse by drug enforcement officers who charged
him with having drugs in his home. Given that the Kankanam-
Pathiranage’s interrogation by drug enforcement officers
focused on drug dealing, however, his arrest and
interrogation appear to have resulted from the discovery of
heroin in his home and the police’s suspicion that he worked
with the drug dealer, rather than from his missionary
activities. Moreover, although Kankanam-Pathiranage
received a threatening phone call instructing him to stop
his “Christian activities,” he could neither identify the
caller nor demonstrate any connection between this call and
his subsequent interactions with the drug enforcement
officers. Finally, the testimony indicated that the drug
dealer solicited Kankanam-Pathiranage due to their former
business dealings. The IJ therefore reasonably found that
Kankanam had not demonstrated that his missionary work was a
central reason he was harmed or that he was targeted by drug
enforcement officers for any reason other than suspected
4
criminal activity. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B); Yanqin
Weng, 562 F.3d at 513. Accordingly, the agency did not err
in concluding that Kankanam-Pathiranage did not establish
eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b).
Next, contrary to Kankanam-Pathiranage’s assertion that
the IJ failed to consider the letters he submitted in
support of his application, because the letters merely echo
his testimony and provide no additional link between the
harm he suffered and a protected ground, the record does not
compel the conclusion that the IJ did not consider them.
See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338
n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) (presuming that the IJ has taken into
account all of the evidence presented unless the record
compellingly suggests otherwise).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5