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,

(2d Cir. 2005). We review adverse credibility

2 determinations for substantial evidence. See

(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions,

(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.”

(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,

(2d Cir.

2008); accord Hong Fei Gao,

. 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

(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,

(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.,

(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,

, 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

(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin,

. 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,

, 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