18

- 2443 Lama v. Barr BIA Poczter , IJ A 205 621 461 

### 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**  **ELE CTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **” ). A PARTY CITING TO 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**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood**  **Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 17**  **th da**  **y of September**  **, two thousand twenty**  **.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **J O**  **N O**  **. N**  **E W**  **M**

**A**

**N ,**  7 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER ,**  8 **MICHAEL H. PARK ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **CHHIRING LAMA ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 18** 
**- 2443**  16 **NAC** 17 **WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES**  18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  19 **Respondent .**  20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Dilli Raj Bhatta , Bhatta Law & 23 Assoc iates , New York, NY

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General ; Claire L. 27 Workman , Senior Litigation 28 Counsel ; John F. Stanton , Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation , United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 D C. 332 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 3

is DENIED

. 4

Petitioner Chhi ring Lama , a native and citizen of Nepal , 5

seeks review of a July 24 , 2018 , decision of the BIA affirming 6

a July 26 , 2017 , decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 7
denying Lama ’s application for asylum, withholding of 8

removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture 9

(“CAT”). In re Chhiring Lama , No. A 205 621 461 (B.I.A. July 10

24 , 2018 ), aff’g No. A 205 621 461 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 11

26 , 201 7 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 12
underlying facts and procedural history. 13

We have review ed the decision of the IJ as supplemented 14
by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 15
Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 16

established. See Lecaj v. Holder , 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 17

2010). 18
To establish eligibility for asylum, Lama was required 19

to show that s he suffered past persecution, or that s he has 20

a well

- founded fear of future persecution , on account of her 21
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 223 social group, or politic al opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1
1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i). When a petitioner establishes past 2
persecution, there is a presumption of a well

- founded fear of 3
future persecution on the basis of the petitioner’s original 4

claim. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). T he presumption of a well

5
founded fear of persecution may be rebutted if the Government 6
shows, by a “preponderance of the evidence,” that “[t]here 7
has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the 8
applicant no longer has a well

- founded fear of pe rsecution.” 9

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i), (ii); see also Lecaj , 616 F.3d 10
at 115. The agency reasonably concluded that, even assuming 11
Lama was credible and had suffered past persecution, any 12
presumption of a well

- founded fear of future persecution had 13

been rebutted. 14

The agency considered the State Department’s Human Rights 15

Report s on Nepal as well as Lama’s evidence and reasonably 16

found as follows. The 10

- year armed conflict between the 17
Maoist insurgency and the government of Nepal ended in 2006 18

when Maoists signed a peace accord and joined the government

. 19

A breakaway Maoist faction committed some acts of political 20
violence and intimidation during the 2013 elections , but the 21
elections were fair and free of irregularities

. Maoists 224 purportedly be at Lama’s grandmother for her political 1
canvasing in the 2013 elections. By 2015, the government had 2
promulgated a constitution, which caused political unrest 3
among an ethnic minority group in the Terai region of Nepal. 4
A comparison of the State Depart ment’s Human Rights 5

Reports for 201 1 , which was when Lama was attacked by Maoists, 6

and 2016, show s the extent to which conditions improved. T he 7

2011 report states that Maoists committ ed acts of violence 8

and extortion throughout the year, although the number of 9
such incidents had markedly decreased from previous years. 10
By comparison, the 2016 report does not report that Maoists 11
committed any such acts during the year. Therefore, t he 12
country conditions evidence support s the agency’s finding 13
that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances 14

since the Maoists assaulted Lama in 2011

. See Lecaj , 616 15

F.3d at 115

– 16. 16
Accordingly, the agency did not err in concluding that 17

circumstances in Nepal had fundamentally chan ged such that 18

Lama does not have a well

- founded fear of political 19
persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i) (A) , (ii); see 20
also Lecaj , 616 F.3d at 116

– 19. Because Lama does not have 21

a well

- founded fear of persecution, the agency did not err in 225 denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief 1

because all three claims were based on the same factual 2
predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d 3
Cir. 2006)

. 4
The agency also did not err in finding that Lama did not 5
establish her eligibility for humanitarian asylum. “[I]f 6
[an] alien ‘has demonstrated compelling reasons for being 7
unwilling or unable to return to the country arising out of 8
the severity of t he past persecution,’ [s]he is still eligible 9
for asylum even though [s]he does not have a well

- founded 10
fear of future persecution.” Jalloh v. Gonzales , 498 F.3d 11
148, 151 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting 8 C.F.R. 12

§ 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A)). To merit a grant of huma nitarian 13
asylum, an applicant “must establish both ‘the severe harm 14
and the long

- lasting effects of that harm.’” Id. at 151 15
(quoting In re N

- M

- A

- , 22 I. & N. Dec. 312, 326 (B.I.A. 16

1998)). Because Lama did not assert that she suffered any 17
“long

- lasting physical or mental effects” from the harm she 18
suffered in Nepal, the agency did not err in her humanitarian 19
asylum. Id. at 152. 20

We do not reach the BIA’s decision insofar as it declined 21

to r emand for consideration of new evidence because Lama does 226 not challenge that ruling

. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 1
426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding 2
abandoned issues and claims not raised in opening brief). 3
For the foregoing reaso ns, the petition for review is 4

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 5

stays VACATED. 6

FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 8 Clerk of Court 9 10