SUNTHARALINKAM v. GONZALES
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in SUNTHARALINKAM v. GONZALES, No. 0470258, an administrative appeal. The panel consisted of Kim McLane Wardlaw and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges, and Richard F. Cebull, District Judge.
WARDLAW, Circuit Judge:
Arangesan Suntharalinkam’s petition for review lies at the intersection of the immigration and counterterrorism laws. Suntharalinkam, a 27-year-old male from northern Sri Lanka, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Suntharalinkam’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), 8 C.F.R. ยงยง 1208.16-1208.18. Suntharalinkam . . .
RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I simply cannot agree that we are compelled to find Suntharalinkam credible. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining the special deference accorded to the BIA’s credibility determination). As the majority opinion recognizes, so long as one of the Immigration Judge’s identified reasons for disbelieving Suntharalinkam is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the persecution claim, we must accept the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination. Majority Opinion at 9938. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004). Additionally, we have endorsed the concept of cumulative incredulity. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000). The majority opinion takes issue with the IJ’s finding that Suntharalinkam’s testimony regarding employment that was not included in his asylum application supported an adverse credibility finding. Majority Opinion at 9940. However, we . . .