### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 60883

MIN KUMAR GURUNG,

Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent

Petition f or Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 254 577

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JONES and HIGGINSON , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
Petitioner Min Kumar Gurung (“ Gurung ”) petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge's (“IJ”) denial of his petition for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) (A) & (B)(i) , withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) ,

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 30, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-60883 Document: 00512820968 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2014No. 13

- 60883 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the fo llowing

reasons , we DENY the petition. In December 2010, Min Kumar Gurung , a native and citizen of Nepal , was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant with authorization to
remain until March 28, 2011. He overstayed his authorization and was served

a Notice to Appear ( “ NTA ” ) charging that he was subject to removal

. Gurung admitted the factual allegations in the NTA and conceded removability , but he filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against T orture ( “ CAT ” ). Gurung’s claims were based on his testimony

— which the IJ found credible

— that he had been the victim of violence and extortion by Maoists in Nepal. Gurung testified that after he had returned to Nepal from working in Malaysia, the Maoists began demanding money and political support. He also testified that i n January of 2006, he was beaten “ a little bit” after rejecting demands for payment and his political support. Beginning in February 2007, Gurung began working in Qatar, but his family continued to receive demands for money from the Maoists. On September 10, 2010, Gurung visited his family in Nepal and received a letter from the Maoists demanding paymen t and political support. On October 4, 2010, Gurung was kidnapped and beaten by
Maoists for refusing their demands. He left Nepal for Spain five days after his kidnappers left him on the side of a road. Gurung asserts that the Maoists had
been motivated by his involvement with the Nepali Congress ( “ NC ” ), a pro

democracy political party. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court only reviews the order of the BIA and will consider the underlying decision of the IJ only if it had some impact upon the BIA’s decision. S harma v. Holder , 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). The BIA’s factual
det ermination that an alien is in eligible for asylum is reviewed under the
2 Case: 13-60883 Document: 00512820968 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2014No. 13

- 60883 substantial evidence standard. Id. Under that standard, this court will not reverse the BIA’s decision unles s the evidence not only supports a contrary
conclusion , but compels it. Majd v. Gonzales , 446 F.3d 590, 594 (5th Cir. 2006). “The petitioner has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Orellana

Monson v. Holder , 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). DISCUSSION Gurung has essentially waived all arguments on appeal by inadequately briefing his asylum claim and failing entirely to address the district court’s rulings on relief under CAT and withholding of removal. 1 The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require an appellant’s brief to contain “argument, which must contain ... appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, w ith citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). In this circuit, “[a] party that asserts an argument on appeal, but fails to adequately brief it, is deemed to have waived it.” United S tates v. Scroggins , 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). In order to be eligible for asylum, Gurung must qualify as a refugee. Sharma , 729 F.3d at 411 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i)). An alien

q ualifies as a refugee if he (1) is outside of his country and is unable or unwilling to return to, or avail himself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well

- founded fear of persecution and (2) demonstrates that his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central

1 B y completely failing to address the CAT and withholding of rem oval issues, Gurung abandon ed the issue s on appeal. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

– 25 (5th Cir. 1993). 3 Case: 13-60883 Document: 00512820968 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/30/2014No. 13

- 60883 reason for the persecution.” Orellana

- Monson , 685 F.3d at 518 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. In 2005, Congress adde d the “one central reason” language through the REAL ID Act to increase the nexus requirement. Shaikh v. Holder , 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009). It is arguable whether Gurung’s brief even addressed the nexus requirement, an essential element of his asy lum eligibility. The BIA denied asylum based, in part, on Gurung’s failure to show he was persecuted on account of his political opinion. Gurung’s brief makes only two arguments: (1) Gurung’s experiences amount to persecution; and (2) a political group qualifies as a particular social group. The latter is another protected ground, parallel to “political opinion,” and the former is only one element of asylum eligibility. In addition to showing that he fits within a protected ground and suffered harm rising to the level of persecution , Gurung must also establish that he has met the nexus requirement: that his protected ground was at least “one central reason” for his persecution. Gurung concludes Part I

— the portion of the brief arguing that he suffered harms that me t the definition of persecution

— with a short discussion that could be read as a nexus argument. There is no indication to the reader that a new element is being discussed or any other explanation of the relationship between that information and the content that had preceded it. If that short discussion is not a nexus argument, then Gurung has waived the nexus issue by failing to brief it. Yohey , 985 F.2d
at 224

– 25

. Even if Gurung ’s brief is construed as addressing nexus, th e issue has
still been inadequately brie fed . Briefs must include an “argument, which must
contain ... appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with ci tations to
the authorities and p a rts of the record on which the appellant relies. ” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A)

. Briefs are inadequate if they fail to cite any relevant case
4 Case: 13-60883 Document: 00512820968 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/30/2014No. 13

- 60883 law from this court and fail to apply the proper test for the disputed issue

. See

e.g. , U.S. v. Skilling , 554 F.3d 529, 568 n.63 (5th Cir. 2009)

. Gurung ’s brief
neither cites n or applies the correct test for t his issue. Since the passage of the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B) has defined the nexus requir ement in terms of the protected ground being at least “one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” Shaikh , 588 F .3d at 864

. As the only two cases cited by Gurung’s brief were decided before the passage of the REAL ID Act , the brief fails to address the “central reason” s tandard. Moreover , the question whether a protected ground was at least one central reason for the persecution is highly factual. Gurung’s brief fails to include a single record citation indicating there is a sufficient nexus between his political opinion s and his persecution. Given these omissions, Gurung has inadequately briefed the “one central reason”
issue. 2 Even were we to overlook the deficiencies of his brief, Gurung’s petition
would still be denied on the merits

. Under the substantial evidence standard, this court will only reverse a BIA ruling if the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it. The record in this case does not compel
the conclusion that Gurung’s persecution was on account of his political opinion. First, any harm su ffered by Gurung for refusing to join the Maoists cannot support an asylum application. See I.N.S. v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S. Ct. 812, 816 (1992) ( holding that fo rced recruitment by guerillas was not persecution based on victim’s politic al beliefs). The only
harms otherwise contained in the record are the Maoist s ’ extortion attempts and the related violence, but the record does not compel a finding that Gurung’s political opinions were on e central reason for the Maoist s ’ extortion.

2 Underscoring the inadequacy of the briefing, Gurung chose not to submit a reply brief even after Respondent argued for waiver in its response brief. 5 Case: 13-60883 Document: 00512820968 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/30/2014No. 13

- 60883 The record contained evidence that extortion was commonplace across the country and that the Maoists targeted civilians who had recently returned from work abroad. Further, the record showed that even though Gurung had been politically active for a number of years, he only began facing extortion attempts after he returned from working in Malaysia

. Therefore, the record does not compel reversal of the BIA. Accordingly , the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals
decision is DENIED

.

6 Case: 13-60883 Document: 00512820968 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/30/2014