Adhikari v. Garland

20-1457(L) Adhikari v. Garland BIA Sponzo, IJ A209 870 432 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 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 31st day of January, two thousand twenty- three. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ PRAJMAL ADHIKARI, Petitioner, 20-1457(L), v. 21-6165(Con) NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Assistant Director; Jeffrey M. Hartman, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review are DENIED. Petitioner Prajmal Adhikari, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of the BIA’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), see In re Prajmal Adhikari, No. A 209 870 432 (B.I.A. Apr. 2, 2020), aff’g No. A209 870 432 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. July 16, 2018), and of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, see In re Prajmal Adhikari, No. A209 870 432 (B.I.A. Mar. 3, 2021). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. A. Denial of Asylum and Related Relief We have considered both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 2 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, and we review questions of law de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, an applicant must establish past persecution or a well-founded fear or likelihood of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); see also id. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b). “[P]ersecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). “To qualify as persecution the conduct at issue must be attributable …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals