Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-3541 Anandahumarasamy v. Lynch BIA Connelly, IJ A206 232 023 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 (
Summary: 14-3541 Anandahumarasamy v. Lynch BIA Connelly, IJ A206 232 023 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 (W..
More
14-3541
Anandahumarasamy v. Lynch
BIA
Connelly, IJ
A206 232 023
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 9th day of May, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SALVARANJAN ANANDAHUMARASAMY,
14 AKA SALVARANJAN
15 ANANDAKUMARASAMY, AKA
16 SELVARANJAN ANANDAKUMARASAMY,
17 Petitioner,
18
19 v. 14-3541
20 NAC
21 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
22 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
23 Respondent.
24 _____________________________________
25
26 FOR PETITIONER: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New
27 York, New York.
28
29 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
30 Deputy Assistant Attorney General;
31 Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant
32 Director; Jeffrey R. Meyer,
1 Attorney, Office of Immigration
2 Litigation, United States
3 Department of Justice, Washington,
4 D.C.
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Salvaranjan Anandahumarasamy, a native and
10 citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of an August 21, 2014,
11 decision of the BIA affirming a January 21, 2014, decision
12 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Anandahumarasamy’s
13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
15 Salvaranjan Anandahumarasamy, No. A206 232 023 (B.I.A. Aug.
16 21, 2014), aff’g No. A206 232 023 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Jan.
17 21, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
18 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have
20 considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the
21 sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
22 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards
23 of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
24 Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2
1 For asylum and withholding of removal, an “applicant
2 must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership
3 in a particular social group, or political opinion was or
4 will be at least one central reason for” the claimed
5 persecution. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A).
6 Anandahumarasamy testified that his captors in Sri Lanka
7 asked him once whether he supported a terrorist group, and
8 he twice mentioned that the group he suspected of kidnapping
9 him kidnapped Tamils. However, he testified repeatedly that
10 the group robbed him, demanded more money, and knew that he
11 had money because he had relatives overseas. The evidence
12 of conditions in Sri Lanka reflected that, after the
13 conclusion of the civil war, paramilitary groups, such as
14 the one Anandahumarasamy suspected of kidnapping him, turned
15 into for-profit criminal gangs. Given Anandahumarasamy’s
16 testimony and the record evidence, substantial evidence
17 supports the IJ’s finding that neither Anandahumarasamy’s
18 ethnicity nor any imputed political opinion was a central
19 reason that he was targeted. Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93,
20 104-05 (2d Cir. 2010).
21 With respect to CAT relief, the agency reasonably
22 concluded that the Sri Lankan government would not torture
3
1 Anandahumarasamy or acquiesce in his torture. The record
2 includes evidence that the government supports or refuses to
3 stop paramilitary groups, but other sources reflect that
4 government support for such groups has lessened as the
5 groups have transitioned into criminal gangs after the civil
6 war. Since there is evidence supporting either assertion, a
7 reasonable fact-finder would not be compelled to find that
8 the government would torture Anandahumarasamy or acquiesce
9 in his torture. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167
10 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Decisions as to which of competing
11 inferences to draw are entirely within the province of the
12 trier of fact” (internal alterations and quotation marks
13 omitted)).
14 Finally, Anandahumarasamy argues that the agency failed
15 to consider whether he was entitled to CAT relief based on
16 his status as a returning asylum seeker. While he advanced
17 this argument before the IJ, he failed to advance it before
18 the BIA, instead arguing that he was entitled to asylum on
19 that ground, and that returning asylum seekers constitute a
20 particular social group under 8 U.S.C. § 1158. Because his
21 brief to the BIA did not discuss his status as a returning
22 asylum seeker in the context of his application for CAT
4
1 relief, the claim is unexhausted. Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t
2 of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED.
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
8
5
