# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 testimon y and in dismissing his appeal of the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except un der the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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: 05/13/2021No. 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, withholdin g 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). W e review such factual findings for substantial evidence , requiring the alien to show that “t he 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 th at the Maoist s who had attacke d 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. T he 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 ha d not identified any evidence of such a Maoist spy network in the country conditions documents and that Bhandari’s supporting affidavits simply parr oted his testimony

. T he IJ and the BIA w ere 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: 05/13/2021No. 20

- 60423

3 uphold the finding was supported by substantial evidence. See Morales , 860 F.3d at 817.

T he BIA acted properly in ruling that Bhandari ’s two prior incidents of verbal harassment and his single beat ing, 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 met al 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 cut s on the head after being struck by a rock did not constitute persecution )

. T he BIA also upheld the IJ’s determination that Bhandari was not likely to suffer more extreme harm

amount ing to persecution upon returning to Nepal . As the BIA added , Bhandari failed to carry his burden of showing that r elocation within Nepal

was not a reasonable means to avoid future persecut ion by his attackers, who were private actors not sponsored by the government

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 3) (iii)

- (iv)

. C ontrary to Bhandari’s contention , the IJ expressly consider e d 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 per secution 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 hi gher showin g 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: 05/13/2021No. 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. § 1 208.1 8 ( a )( 1 ) (defining t orture to include the intentional infliction , by a person acting in an official capacity , of severe pain or suffering for the purposes of punishment, intimidat ion, or coerci on). 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