NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12

- 4056

___________
RAJESH ADHIKARI

, Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

, Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition fo r Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A087

- 567

- 743 ) Immigration Judge: Honorable Annie S. Garcy

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 10, 2013 Before: FISHER, GARTH an d ROTH

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : April 11, 2013 )

_________
OPINION

_________
PER CURIAM

Rajesh Adhikari, a citizen of Nepal, seeks review of a Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) decision denying his applications for relief from removal. W e will deny2 his petition for review. 1

We agree with the BIA that Adhikari failed to demonstrate “a requisite nexus”

between his claim and a statutory ground for asylum and withholding

- of

- removal relief.

See Administrative Record (A.R.) 3 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 115 8 (b)(1)(B)(i)) ; see also 8

U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) . Under the REAL ID Act, which applies to Adhikari ’s case , “ the

applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social

group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting ” him.

8 U.S.C. § 115 8 (b)(1)(B)(i); see also Li v. Att’y Gen. , 633 F.3d 136, 142 n.4 (3d Cir.

2011)

. Adhikari claimed, but did not show, that he was targeted for robbery and

extortion based on his membership in a particular social group and his political opinion.

Assuming, without deciding, that Adhikari articulated a cognizable social group of

“substantial businessmen of means” under the statute , see Gomez

- Zuluaga v. Att’y Gen.

,
527 F.3d 330, 345 n.10 (3d Cir. 2 008)

, the record does not compel the conclusion that he

suffered mistreatment because of his membership in that group

. Furthermore, a lthough

Adhikari explained that his assailants identified themselves as members of the Young

Communist League and demanded money “from [his] business in order to develop” their

1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) , reviewing the BIA’s disposition , as well as the Immigration Judge’s decis ion to the extent the BIA deferred to it. See Roye v. Att’y Gen. , 693 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2012) . Agency determinations of fact are upheld

“ unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary ” based on the evidentiary recor d. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) ; accord Garcia v. Att’y Gen.

, 665 F.3d 496, 498 n.1 (3d Cir. 2011) . Because we write primarily for the parties, we will describe the facts only as they directly relate to our decision.3 political organization, see A.R. 102

– 03

, the assailants gave no indication that they were

singling him out on any protected basis, whether social or political. Cf. INS v. Elias

Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992) (“ The ordinary meaning of the phrase ‘ persecution on

account of . . . political opinion ’ in [8 U.S.C. § 1101] (a)(42) is persecution on account of

the victim’s politi cal opinion, not the persecutor’ s. ”). Criminal activity and civil strife,

whil e unfortunate , do not always implicate a protected ground under the Act. 2 See, e.g.

, Gormley v. Ashcroft , 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004)

. In short

, the BIA did not err

in denying Adhikari’s asylum and withholding claims. 3

Adhikari also contends tha t the BIA applied the wrong standard in deciding his

Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim. We do not detect any infirmity in the BIA’s

CAT analysis; simply put, the record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely

than not that Adhikari will be tortured if returned to Nepal

. See Roye , 693 F.3d at 341

.

F or the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

2 Although Adhikari c ontends that eviden ce in the record supports his claims, “[w]here the record supports plausible but conflicting inferences in an immigration case, the [agency’s] choice between those inferences is, a fortiori, supported by substantial evidence.” Lopez de Hincapie v. Gonzale s, 494 F.3d 213, 219 (1st Cir. 2007)

.

3 We do not think that the BIA held Adhikari “to an overly strict standard.” Pet’r Br. 25. Extortion that is, in part, politically motivated or is designed to enrich a political entity does not, under the reasonin g of Elias

- Zacarias , suffice to show that the targets of the extortion were selected on political or social

- group grounds. See Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S at 482.