Sasetharan Arulampalam v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Sasetharan Arulampalam, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . As the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning, we review the latter, Paramasamy v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.2002), grant the petition for review, and remand.

BACKGROUND

Arulampalam was born on November 20, 1978 in northern Sri Lanka, where he lived for two decades with his family. He is a Hindu of Tamil ethnicity. Arulampalam attended school intermittently from ages 5 to 15. He cannot read or write well and worked as a farmer alongside his father.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE” or “Tigers”) is, according to the State Department’s 2001 Country Report, “an insurgent organization fighting for a separate ethnic Tamil state in the north *681 and east of [Sri Lanka].” 1 Tamils are an ethnic minority in Sri Lanka, constituting 18% of the population as of 2001. Both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government were reported by the State…

Concurring and Dissenting:

I concur in the majority’s decision to grant the petition under the Torture Convention, 1 but otherwise dissent.

The BIA’s determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum must be upheld if “ ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’ ” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 , 112 S.Ct. 812, 815 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (citation omitted). “It can be reversed only if the evidence presented ... was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.” Id. When an alien seeks to overturn the BIA’s adverse determination “he must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Id. at 483-84 , 112 S.Ct. at 817 ; see also Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995). Credibility determinations are judged by the same basic standard. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002); Cord on-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir.2000); de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391 , 393 (9th Cir.1997). In that area, however, we have added that the…

353 F.3d 679 Sasetharan ARULAMPALAM, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 02-71267. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted November 6, 2003 — Pasadena, California. Filed December 19, 2003. Judith L. Wood and Jesse A. Moorman, Los Angeles, California, for the petitioner. John S. Hogan and Cindy S. Ferrier, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before: Harry Pregerson, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges. OPINION BERZON, Circuit Judge. 1 Sasetharan Arulampalam, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . As the BIA adopted the IJ's reasoning, we review the latter, Paramasamy v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.2002), grant the petition for review, and remand. BACKGROUND 2 Arulampalam…