19-3733
Arachchige v. Garland
BIA
Thompson, IJ
A201 133 866
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 TO 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 12th day of January, two thousand twenty-two.
PRESENT:
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
SILUDATHTHA INDRAJITH LOKU
WEERAKKODY ARACHCHIGE,
Petitioner,
v. 19-3733
NAC
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq.,
New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
Assistant Attorney General; Linda
S. Wernery, Assistant Director;
Janice K. Redfern, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
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.
Petitioner Siludaththa Indrajith Loku Weerakkody
Arachchige, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review
of an October 11, 2019 decision of the BIA dismissing
Arachchige’s appeal of an April 13, 2018 decision of an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Arachchige’s application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Siludaththa
Indrajith Loku Weerakkody Arachchige, No. A201 133 866
(B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2019), dismissing No. A201 133 866 (Immig.
Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 13, 2018). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the
BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d
520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review adverse credibility
2
determinations for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76
(2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the
circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may
base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency
between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral
statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such
statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with
other evidence of record.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
“We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless,
from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no
reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility
ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.
2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. On such review,
we conclude that in this case, substantial evidence supports
the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
To begin with, the agency reasonably relied on
inconsistencies between Arachchige’s testimony, his
affidavit, and affidavits from his mother and brother. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Arachchige made inconsistent
statements in his testimony and in his asylum application
3
about whether he knew what happened to church leaders who
disappeared, and his testimony that he had never been in
hiding and that he was arrested and beaten only once were
inconsistent with sworn statements provided by his brother
and mother. The IJ was not required to credit his
explanations because they did not resolve the
inconsistencies. For example, there is no record support for
his claim that a translation error accounted for the important
difference between his and his mother’s account of the number
of times he was arrested and beaten. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more
than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent
statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a
reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his
testimony” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Arachchige
argues also that the inconsistencies relied on are too minor
to support the adverse credibility determination. But his
core claim was that he was arrested and tortured, and so the
number of times that he was detained or tortured and whether
he hid from authorities are issues central to his claim. The
inconsistencies identified by the IJ thus provide substantial
4
evidence for the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 295
(2d Cir. 2006) (holding that “a material inconsistency in an
aspect of [the petitioner]’s story that served as an example
of the very persecution from which he sought asylum . . .
afforded substantial evidence to support the adverse
credibility finding”); see also Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d
137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (observing that “even a single
inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ
was compelled to find him credible”). We identify no error
in the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
167. This determination is dispositive of Arachchige’s
claims for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief
because all three claims rest on the same factual
predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d
Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
stays VACATED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5