Case ID: f-appx_561/html/0026-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Singe SHERPA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-993 NAC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 28, 2014.
    Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York, N Y, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Karen Stewart, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, ROBERT D. SACK, and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Singe Sherpa, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of a February 26, 2013 order of the BIA affirming the June 28, 2011 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Singe Sherpa, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (BIA Feb. 26, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct.N.Y. City June 28, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). Our scope of review is limited to consideration of whether Sherpa met his burden of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, because the BIA declined to address or explicitly affirm the other aspects of the IJ’s decision. See Xue Hong Yang, 426 F.3d at 522.

Sherpa argues that he suffered past persecution at the hands of Maoists in Nepal who threatened to take him by force if he refused to join them. However, as Sherpa testified, the Maoists did not physically harm him, but merely threatened to do so. The agency therefore reasonably found that the Maoists’ unfulfilled threats did not constitute persecution. See Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 449 F.3d 408, 412 (2d Cir.2006); Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 342 (2d Cir.2006).

Sherpa also asserts that he established a well-founded fear of future persecution by Maoists because he opposed them politically as a member of the Nepalese Congress Party (“NCP”). In order to demonstrate that persecution bears a nexus to an applicant’s political opinion, the applicant must show that the persecutor was motivated by his or her perception of the applicant’s opinion, rather than merely by his or her own opinion. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir.2005). Sherpa testified that the Maoists targeted him because his father was a village chief years earlier, and stated that even his wife did not have knowledge that he was a member of the NCP. Furthermore, the background materials, particularly the 2010 State Department Human Rights Report and 2011 State Department Travel Advisory, reflect that Maoists continued to foster violence in Nepal through “arbitrary and unlawful killings,” but indicate that they do not target any particular group of people. Given the lack of evidence demonstrating that Sherpa would be targeted by Maoists, the agency reasonably found that he failed to establish an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of persecution. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 314 n. 3 (2d Cir.1999).

Because Sherpa was unable to show the objective fear of harm needed to make out an asylum claim, he was necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed on a claim for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d Cir.2010).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.