United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60423

Summary Calendar

Subin Bhandari, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 753 164

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Subin Bhandari, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of 

a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He argues that the 

BIA erred in upholding the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) adverse credibility 

finding regarding portions of his testimony and in dismissing his appeal of the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 13, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60423 Document: 00515860651 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
No. 20-60423

2

IJ’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Bhandari also 

moves for a stay of removal. 

We generally review only the BIA’s decision; the IJ’s decision is 

reviewed only if, as here, it influenced the BIA. See Singh v. Sessions, 880 

F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Credibility findings, as well as determinations 

that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief, 

are factual findings. Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2017); 

Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). We review such factual 

findings for substantial evidence, requiring the alien to show that “the 

evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude 

against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2009) (quote at 

537). 

Here, the BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility finding with regard 

to Bhandari’s testimony that the Maoists who had attacked him in December 

2017 repeatedly looked for him at his parents’ home thereafter and advised 

his parents in November 2018 that they were going to kill him. The IJ found 

implausible Bhandari’s assertion that the attackers must have identified his 

parents and their homeplace through a network of spies. The BIA added that 

Bhandari had not identified any evidence of such a Maoist spy network in the 

country conditions documents and that Bhandari’s supporting affidavits 

simply parroted his testimony. 

The IJ and the BIA were entitled to consider the inherent plausibility 

of Bhandari’s and his witnesses’ statements and whether his testimony was 

consistent with other record evidence, such as country conditions 

documentation. See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763-64 (5th Cir. 

2020). Given that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not clearly 

unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances, the BIA’s decision to 

Case: 20-60423 Document: 00515860651 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
No. 20-60423

3

uphold the finding was supported by substantial evidence. See Morales, 860 

F.3d at 817.

The BIA acted properly in ruling that Bhandari’s two prior incidents 

of verbal harassment and his single beating, which resulted in bruises and 

swelling that were treated at home, did not constitute past persecution. See

Gjetani v Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 395-96, 399 (5th Cir. 2020) (indicating that 

three death threats and a single assault with a belt and a sharp metal object, 

resulting in knee and toe injuries requiring stitches, did not rise to the level 

of persecution); Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187-88 (5th Cir. 2004)

(indicating that a verbal taunt and cuts on the head after being struck by a

rock did not constitute persecution). The BIA also upheld the IJ’s 

determination that Bhandari was not likely to suffer more extreme harm 

amounting to persecution upon returning to Nepal. As the BIA added, 

Bhandari failed to carry his burden of showing that relocation within Nepal 

was not a reasonable means to avoid future persecution by his attackers, who 

were private actors not sponsored by the government. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.13(b)(3)(iii)-(iv). Contrary to Bhandari’s contention, the IJ expressly 

considered the necessary regulatory factors by citing country conditions 

evidence in deciding that internal relocation was reasonable. See

§ 1208.13(b)(3). Thus, a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to 

conclude that Bhandari demonstrated a well-founded fear of future

persecution in Nepal. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37. 

An alien seeking withholding of removal must show a clear probability 

of persecution in his native country based on a protected ground. Faddoul v. 

INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). Since Bhandari has failed to 

demonstrate the well-founded fear of persecution required for asylum, he has 

necessarily also failed to make the higher showing required for withholding 

of removal. See id.; see also Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004).

Case: 20-60423 Document: 00515860651 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/13/2021
No. 20-60423

4

An applicant for CAT relief must show a likelihood that “he would be 

tortured if returned to his home country.” Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344-45; see also

8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (defining torture to include the intentional 

infliction, by a person acting in an official capacity, of severe pain or suffering 

for the purposes of punishment, intimidation, or coercion). Here again, since 

Bhandari has failed to show a well-founded fear of future harm rising to the 

level of persecution, he has likewise failed to satisfy “the higher bar” of likely 

torture. See Roy, 389 F.3d at 139-40 (quote at 140) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). 

In light of the foregoing, the BIA’s factual findings that Bhandari was 

not entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief were 

supported by substantial evidence. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37. Bhandari’s

petition for review is DENIED, and his motion for a stay of removal is

DENIED as moot. 

Case: 20-60423 Document: 00515860651 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/13/2021