18

- 3816 Shrestha v. Garland BIA Christensen , IJ A 208 927 770 

### 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 FED**  **ERAL 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit ,**  **held at the Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 1**  **6 t**  **h da**  **y of A**  **p r**  **i l**  **, two thousand twenty** 

**- one** 
**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON ,**  7 **C hief**  **Judge ,**  8 **RICHARD C. WESLEY ,**  9 **STEVEN J. MENASHI ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **LAXMAN SHRESTHA ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 18** 

**- 3816**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND , UNITED**  19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** ***** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Dilli Raj Bhatta, Esq. , Bhatta 24 Law & Associates, New York, NY

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian M. Boynton, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General ; Kohsei 28 Ugumori , Senior Litigation 29

* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent.2 Counsel ; David J. Schor , Trial 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation , United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 D C. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 9

is DENIED

. 10

Pe titioner Laxman Shrestha , a native and citizen of 11
Nepal , seeks review of a November 29 , 2018 , decision of the 12
BIA affirming a November 2 , 2017 , decision of an Immigration 13
Judge (“IJ”) denying Shrestha ’s application for asylum, 14
withholding of removal , and relief under the Convention 15
Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Laxman Shrestha , No. A 208 927 16

770 (B.I.A. Nov. 29 , 2018 ), aff’g No. A 208 927 770 (Immig. 17
Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 2, 2017 ). We assume the parties’ 18
familiarity with the underlying facts and proced ural history. 19

We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions “for 20
the sake of completeness

. ” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 21

Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006)

. The standards of 22

review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 23
Lecaj v. Holder , 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010). 243 The agency did not err in concluding that Shrestha failed 1
to satisfy his burden of proof for asylum, withholding of 2

removal, and CAT relief based on his claim that Maoists 3

a ttempted to a ttack him in 2009 and threatened him in 2013 on 4
account of his membership in the Nepali Congress Party . To 5
establish eligibility for asylum, Shrestha was required to 6

show that he suffer ed past persecution, or that he has a well

7
founded fear of future persecution , on account of his race, 8
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 9
group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 10

1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i). 11
The agency did not err in concluding that Shrestha’s 12
experiences did not rise to the level of persecution because 13
he was not harmed in either incident, he did not have any 14
interaction with Maoists in Nepal during the four years 15

between the incidents or the one and a half years after the 16

second incident, and the Maoists’ threats we nt unfulfilled. 17
See Mei Fun Wong v. Holder , 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011) 18
( “[P]ersecution is an extreme concept that does not include 19
every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” 20
(internal quotation marks omitted)) ; Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder , 214 632 F.3d 820, 822 (2d Cir. 2011) (finding no error in the 1
agency’s determination that an al ien failed to establish past 2
persecution when “he suffered only minor bruising from an 3
altercation with family planning officials, which required no 4
formal medical attention and had no lasting physical 5

effect”); Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Att’y General , 449 F.3d 4 08, 6

412

– 13 (2d Cir. 2006) ( concluding that unfulfilled threats do 7
not constitute persecution)

. 8
Absent past persecution, an alien may establish 9
eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well

- founded fear 10
of future persecution, “which requires that the alie n present 11
credible testimony that he subjectively fears persecution and 12
establish that his fear is objectively reasonable.” 13

Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004); 14

see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). The agency did not err 15

in concludi ng that Shrestha failed to establish a well

16
founded fear of persecution in Nepal because he remained 17
unharmed in Nepal for one and a half years after the 2013 18
threat and conditions in Nepal had improved significantly 19

since then. See Melgar de Torres v. Re no , 191 F.3d 307, 313 20
(2d Cir. 1999) (finding a fear of future persecution weakened 215 when similarly situated family members remain unharmed in 1
petitioner’s native country) ; see also Ramsameachire , 357 2

F.3d at 178. Because Shrestha does not have a well

- foun ded 3
fear of persecution, the agency did not err in denying asylum, 4
withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three 5
claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Lecaj , 6

616 F.3d at 119

– 20

. 7
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 8

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 9

stays VACATED. 10

FOR THE COURT: 11 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 12 Clerk of Court 13