Kumar KC v. Gonzales , 210 F. App'x 238 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2306
DEEPAK KUMAR KC,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
No. 06-1604
DEEPAK KUMAR KC,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-479-692)
Submitted: September 22, 2006 Decided: December 18, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, CHHETRY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New
York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Patricia M.
Bowman, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review, Deepak Kumar
KC (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Nepal, requests review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and
affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture, and a separate order denying his motion to reopen.
In No. 05-2306, Petitioner challenges the immigration
judge’s determination that he failed to establish his eligibility
for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying
eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he
presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the
evidence of record and conclude that Petitioner fails to show that
the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot
grant the relief that he seeks.
Because Petitioner cannot sustain his burden on the
asylum claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to withholding of
removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal
is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be
proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is
necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.]
§ 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.
- 3 -
2004). Because substantial evidence supports the ruling that
Petitioner is ineligible for asylum, he likewise fails to qualify
for withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Petitioner fails to meet the standard for relief under
the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an
applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he
or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). We find that
Petitioner failed to make the requisite showing below.
With respect to No. 06-1604, the Board ruled that
Petitioner did not establish a nexus between the persecution he
feared by Maoist insurgents and his political beliefs, and that he
failed to present evidence sufficient to establish prima facie
eligibility for asylum on the grounds that members of his political
party are subject to persecution on account of their opposition to
both the Maoists and the monarchy.
We review a denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). A denial
of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference,
since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the
applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. MA v. INS, 899
F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990)(en banc). We have reviewed the
- 4 -
evidence of record and conclude that Petitioner fails to show that
the Board abused its discretion.
Accordingly, we deny both petitions for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 5 -