Chhetri v. Garland

21-6100
Chhetri v. Garland
BIA
Schoppert, IJ
A202 081 120
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 22nd day of February, two thousand twenty-
5 three.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
10 BETH ROBINSON,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 BUDDHI BAHADUR CHHETRI,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 21-6100
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq.
25 New York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting
28 Assistant Attorney General; Dawn
1 S. Conrad, Senior Litigation
2 Counsel; Rachel P. Berman-Vaporis,
3 Trial Attorney, Office of
4 Immigration Litigation, United
5 States Department of Justice,
6 Washington, DC.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Petitioner Buddhi Bahadur Chhetri, a native and citizen
13 of Nepal, seeks review of a January 27, 2021 decision of the
14 BIA affirming an August 29, 2018 decision of an Immigration
15 Judge (“IJ”) denying Chhetri’s application for asylum,
16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Buddhi Bahadur Chhetri, No.
18 A202 081 120 (B.I.A. Jan. 27, 2021), aff’g No. A202 081 120
19 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 29, 2018). We assume the parties’
20 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
21 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s
22 and the BIA’s opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
23 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review adverse
24 credibility determinations under the substantial evidence
25 standard. See Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F3d 67, 76 (2d
26 Cir. 2018). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are
2
1 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
2 compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. §
3 1252(b)(4)(B).
4 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
5 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
6 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s
7 or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and
8 whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances
9 under which the statements were made), the internal
10 consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of
11 such statements with other evidence of record.” Id.12 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility
13 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,
14 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an
15 adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
16 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d
17 at 76. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
18 determination that Chhetri was not credible as to his claim
19 that upper caste Maoists attacked and threatened him on
20 account of his caste and political support for the Nepali
21 Congress Party.
3
1 The agency reasonably relied on the following record
2 inconsistencies: (1) Chhetri stated during his credible-fear
3 interview and in his asylum application that individuals from
4 an upper caste targeted him on account of his caste and not
5 on account of his political opinion, but he later attested
6 in an affidavit and testified that the upper caste individuals
7 were Maoists who targeted him on account of his caste as well
8 as his support for the Nepali Congress Party and refusal to
9 join their party; and (2) he attested in his affidavit that
10 Maoists broke his hand and rendered him unconscious and that
11 he regained consciousness before being taken to the hospital,
12 but he testified that he had broken his arm rather than his
13 hand and that he had regained consciousness in the hospital.
14 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Likai Gao v. Barr,
15 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single
16 inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ
17 was compelled to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies
18 would so preclude even more forcefully.”). Chhetri’s
19 explanations were not compelling because there is no
20 indication in the record that he did not understand the
21 interpreters who translated at his credible-fear interview
22 and helped prepare his application, and he merely restated
4
1 earlier statements regarding his injuries. See Majidi v.
2 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must
3 do more than offer a plausible explanation for his
4 inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate
5 that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit
6 his testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
7 These inconsistencies provide substantial evidence for
8 the adverse credibility determination, which was dispositive
9 of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See
10 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
11 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
14 stays VACATED.
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
17 Clerk of Court
5