9th Cir.

Edirisinghe v. Blanche

June 12, 2026 ·25-2518 ·Unpublished · By Maria Santos

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review and remanded an immigration case where the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to properly apply the cumulative-effect standard for past persecution. The court denied the petition regarding the Convention Against Torture claim because the petitioner failed to raise the issue with sufficient specificity.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:04

Background

Petitioner Athmaja Uvindu Edirisinghe, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied these claims, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the denial. The petitioner petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed de novo whether the Board applied the wrong legal standard. It found that while the Board recited the correct cumulative-effect standard, its analysis relied on case citations that dealt with individual harms rather than cumulative harms. The Board’s parentheticals indicated it rejected categories of harm on an individual basis, which constitutes error. The court granted the petition and remanded the asylum and withholding of removal claims. Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the court reviewed for substantial evidence and found the petitioner forfeited review because the brief contained only one conclusory, unsupported sentence challenging the denial.

What it means going forward

The case is remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals to apply the correct cumulative-effect review for the asylum and withholding of removal claims. The petitioner’s motion for a stay of removal is granted pending the outcome of the remand.