Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Wijesiriwardena v. Gonzales
Citation: 183 F. App'x 142Docket: No. 05-2906-ag
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; August 1, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Sisil Prasad Wijesiriwardena's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, which upheld Immigration Judge (IJ) Philip Montante's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief, has been denied. The review focuses on the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination since the BIA affirmed it without issuing an opinion. The review process involves de novo consideration of legal questions and substantial evidence review for factual findings. The IJ's adverse credibility finding against Wijesiriwardena is supported by substantial evidence, particularly concerning his significant delays in seeking asylum and his failure to present critical allegations until the hearing. Wijesiriwardena, who traveled to Kuwait in 1991 after alleged severe mistreatment in prison, did not seek protection from either the Kuwaiti or U.S. governments during his eight-year stay in Kuwait. Upon returning to Sri Lanka in 1999, he claimed the military pursued him, but he did not report this to U.S. immigration upon arriving in November 2000. Instead, he sought asylum in Canada, which was denied, and he subsequently returned to the U.S. He omitted numerous serious allegations from his asylum application, including severe abuse by the army, and failed to provide corroborating evidence for these claims, which undermined his assertion of physical and psychological abuse. The IJ reasonably rejected Wijesiriwardena's explanations for these omissions as insufficient. Since he did not present an independent factual basis for withholding of removal or CAT relief, the adverse credibility finding was detrimental to those claims as well. Consequently, the petition for review is denied, any stay of removal previously granted is vacated, and any pending motions for a stay are denied as moot. Requests for oral argument are also denied.