## Facts

- Navaratwam Kamalthas, a Tamil national of Sri Lanka, arrived at Portland International Airport in 1996 using a false passport and was detained in exclusion proceedings.
- He applied for asylum and withholding of deportation, alleging attempted recruitment and beating by the Tamil Tigers and later detention and torture by Sri Lankan police.
- An Immigration Judge found him not credible and denied asylum and withholding of deportation; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.
- After a Ninth Circuit disposition left the asylum/withholding credibility ruling undisturbed, Kamalthas sought to reopen to pursue protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- In his motion to reopen, he largely resubmitted prior materials and added an unsigned affidavit.
- The BIA denied reopening, reasoning that he offered no new evidence to rebut the prior adverse credibility finding and therefore failed to make a prima facie CAT case.

## Issues

1. Whether an adverse credibility determination and denial of asylum/withholding necessarily preclude eligibility for CAT protection.
2. Whether the BIA abuses its discretion by denying a motion to reopen for CAT relief solely because the applicant failed to submit new evidence rebutting a prior asylum-stage credibility finding.
3. Whether the BIA must consider independent, objective evidence—particularly country conditions—when evaluating a prima facie CAT claim on reopening.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review, reversed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen, and remanded.
- The court held that ineligibility for asylum on adverse credibility grounds does not necessarily foreclose CAT protection.
- The court concluded the BIA abused its discretion by conflating asylum and CAT standards and by failing to recognize that country conditions evidence may be decisive in CAT claims.
- The court required a CAT-specific analysis that considers all relevant evidence of the likelihood of future torture, including objective documentation of conditions in Sri Lanka.

## Legal Principles

- CAT protection requires showing it is more likely than not the applicant would be tortured if removed, by or with the acquiescence of a public official.
- Unlike asylum, CAT does not require a nexus between harm and a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, particular social group, or political opinion).
- Adjudicators must consider all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture, including country conditions reports and evidence of widespread human rights abuses.
- Objective country conditions evidence alone can establish a prima facie case for CAT relief and can be decisive even when the applicant’s personal testimony is disbelieved.
- Denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion; a decision is an abuse when it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law, including when the agency applies the wrong legal framework to CAT claims.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that CAT relief is analytically independent from asylum and that a prior adverse credibility finding does not automatically defeat a CAT claim; the BIA must evaluate objective evidence, including country conditions, when deciding whether reopening is warranted for CAT protection.


Kamalthas v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001)