17-1005 

Bohara v. Whitaker 

 BIA 

Poczter, IJ 

A206 475 735 

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 

ELECTRONIC 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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 25th 4 day of January, two thousand nineteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JON O. NEWMAN,

8 DENNY CHIN, 

9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 RAM KRISHNA BOHARA, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 17-1005 

17 NAC 

18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, 

19 ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

20 GENERAL, 

21 Respondent. 

22 _____________________________________ 

23 

24 	
2 

1 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New 

2 York, NY. 

3 

4 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal 

5 Deputy Assistant Attorney 

6 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, 

7 Assistant Director; Surell 

8 Brady, Trial Attorney, Office of 

9 Immigration Litigation, United 

10 States Department of Justice, 

11 Washington, DC. 

12 

13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

14 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

15 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

16 is DENIED. 

17 Petitioner Ram Krishna Bohara, a native and citizen of 

18 Nepal, seeks review of a March 9, 2017, decision of the BIA 

19 affirming an August 2, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge 

20 (“IJ”) denying Bohara’s application for asylum, withholding 

21 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

22 (“CAT”). In re Ram Krishna Bohara, No. A206 475 735 (B.I.A. 

23 Mar. 9, 2017), aff’g No. A206 475 735 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 

24 Aug. 2, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

25 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

26 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 

27 the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision. Shunfu Li v. 

28 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable 
3 

1 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 

2 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-

3 66 (2d Cir. 2008). 

4 The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides 

5 that the agency must “[c]onsider[] the totality of the 

6 circumstances,” and may base a credibility finding on 

7 inconsistencies or omissions in his or his witness’s 

8 statements, “without regard to whether” they go “to the 

9 heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 

10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); accord Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-

11 64, 166-67. “[E]ven where an IJ relies on discrepancies or 

12 lacunae that, if taken separately, concern matters 

13 collateral or ancillary to the claim, the cumulative effect 

14 may nevertheless be deemed consequential by the fact15 finder.” Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 

16 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “We 

17 defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination 

18 unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder 

19 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia 

20 Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. See also Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 

21 891 F.3d 67, 77 (2d Cir. 2018). For the reasons that 
4 

1 follow, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the 

2 agency’s credibility ruling. 

3 First, the agency reasonably relied on inconsistency 

4 between Bohara’s testimony and evidence concerning his one 

5 alleged physical altercation with Maoists. Id. at 163-64. 

6 Bohara’s application and testimony reflected that he was 

7 slapped by one individual; however, a letter from the 

8 Nepali Congress Party (“NCP”) stated that Maoists attacked 

9 and injured him, and a letter from a NCP candidate stated 

10 that Bohara was badly injured by Maoists. The agency was 

11 not required to credit Bohara’s explanation—that he did not 

12 know why the letters stated that was injured—because it did 

13 not explain the inconsistencies. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 

14 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than 

15 offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent 

16 statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a 

17 reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his 

18 testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The agency 

19 also properly found these discrepancies significant because 

20 they related to Bohara’s only allegation of past physical 

21 harm. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. 
5 

1 Second, the agency reasonably relied on inconsistency 

2 between Bohara’s testimony and evidence concerning when he 

3 joined the NCP. Tu Lin, 446 F.3d at 402. Bohara testified 

4 that he joined the NCP on August 19, 2006, but his party’s 

5 letter stated that he joined on April 10, 2008. The agency 

6 was not compelled to credit Bohara’s explanation that he 

7 forgot when he joined the NCP. Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. 

8 Although a discrepancy in dates need not be fatal if “minor 

9 and isolated,” Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 288 (2d Cir. 

10 2000), Bohara’s date discrepancy spanned nearly two years. 

11 Moreover, Bohara’s credibility on this point was further 

12 undermined by the fact that his party certificate had a 

13 blank space for his membership date. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 

14 F.3d at 166-67 & n.3 (“An inconsistency and an omission 

15 are . . . functionally equivalent” for credibility 

16 purposes.). 

17 Third, the agency reasonably relied on the inconsistency 

18 between Bohara’s testimony and evidence concerning the 

19 results of the 2013 constituent assembly elections. Id. at 

20 163-64. Bohara’s testimony that Maoists won the elections 

21 was contradicted by the country conditions evidence. After 

22 initially testifying that the country conditions evidence was 
6 

1 wrong, Bohara explained that he forgot who won. The agency 

2 reasonably rejected this explanation because Bohara 

3 specifically testified that he worked on these elections. 

4 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. 

5 Fourth, the agency reasonably relied on inconsistency 

6 between Bohara’s testimony and evidence concerning the date 

7 of his father’s attack. Tu Lin, 446 F.3d at 402. Bohara 

8 testified that Maoists attacked his father on November 25, 

9 2015, but a letter from the police stated that the attack 

10 occurred on December 7, 2015. The agency did not err in 

11 rejecting Bohara’s explanation—that the date in the letter 

12 was a mistake—because it was not compelling given the other 

13 date discrepancies in the record. Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. 

14 While this inconsistency is minor, it nevertheless provides 

15 additional support for the agency’s adverse credibility 

16 ruling. Tu Lin, 446 F.3d at 402. 

17 Given the foregoing inconsistencies, which call into 

18 question Bohara’s sole allegation of past physical harm and 

19 whether he supported the NCP, the “totality of the 

20 circumstances” supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

21 determination. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The 

22 credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, 
7 

1 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three 

2 claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. 

3 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

5 DENIED. 

6 FOR THE COURT: 

7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 

8 Clerk of Court