N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R ISHI R AM B AR AL, Pe t i tione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 12-71318 Age n c y No. A089-294-740
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 12, 2016 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , C HR ISTEN, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc u it Judge s. R ishi R am B a

ra l, a native and c itiz e n of Ne pa l, pe titions for re vie w of a fina l orde r of re m ova l from the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA). The B IA dism isse d B ara l’ s a

ppe a l of a n Im m igration Judge ’ s (IJ’ s ) de nia l of his a pplic a tions for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c t ion unde r the Unite d Nations



# FIL ED
SEP 28 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252.

W e dism i ss in pa

rt a nd de ny in pa rt the pe tition. 1. B ara l first a

rgue s tha t the IJ e rre d in dismissing his a s y lum c l a im a s untim e l y . “ Unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(B ), an a l ie n se e king a sy lum m ust file an
a pplic a tion within one y e ar of arriva l in the Unite d Stat e s, unle s s one of two sta tutory e x c e ptions a

pplie s.” R amadan v . Gonzale s , 479 F.3d 646, 649 (9th C ir. 2007) (pe r c uriam ). B a

ra l c onc e de s tha

t he file d his a

pplic a tion for a sy lum

m ore tha n one y e ar a fte r he arrive d in the Unite d State s, but he argue s tha t c ha nge d
c irc um s ta nc e s in Ne pa l e xc use d his la t e filing. B ara l fa i le d to de m onstra te tha t c onditions in Ne

pa l m a te ria lly

c ha nge d a fte r he le ft the c ountry

in 2007. B ara l re lie s prim arily on the 2008 U.S. Sta

te De pa rtm e nt R e port to de m onstra te c h ange d c irc um s ta

nc e s. The re port e xpla ins that M a oist violenc e wa s prim arily a holdove r from

the te n-y e ar c onflic t be twe e n M a o ists a nd the gove rnm e nt tha

t e nde d in 2006. There fore , the IJ prope rly
c onc lude d tha

t inc ide nts of viole nc e and e xtortion a t the ha nds of M a oists did not
re fle c t c ha n ge d c irc um s ta

nc e s m a te ria l to B ara l ’ s pe t ition tha t would e xc use his late filing. 2. The IJ de nie d B ara l’ s a pplic a tion for withholding of re m o va l on two
a lte rna tive grounds. First, the IJ c onc lude d tha

t B ara l did not te stify

c re dibly a bout
2the e ve nts le a ding up to his flight from Ne pa l, a nd the B IA a ffirm e d tha

t ruling. B ara l c onte nds tha

t the re c ord c om

pe ls re ve rsa l of the IJ’ s a d ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation be c a

use tha t finding wa s ba se d on m inor inc onsiste n c i e s in B ara l’ s te stim ony . W e disa gre e . The R EAL ID Ac t

gove rns be c a

use B ara l file d his pe tition a fte r M ay 11, 2005. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii); S hre s tha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re vie w a n IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

finding unde r the de fe re ntia l substa

ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd, Ai J un Zhi v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014), a

nd “ only the m ost e x tra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s will justify
ove rturning a

n a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion,” Shre

stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1041 (quoting J

ibril v . Gonzale

s , 423 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.1 (9th C ir. 2005) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the IJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t B a ra l te stifie d inc o nsiste ntly

a bout the se rie s of e ve nts tha t le d him to fle e from

Ne pa l in 2007. B ara l first told the

IJ tha t his first e nc ounte r with the M a o ists wa s in M arc h 2006 whe n M a oists c a lle d him

a t his hom e and thre a te ne d him , but la te r told the IJ tha

t he e n c o unte re d the M a oists whe n he “ we nt to ge t [his] prope rty ” in De c e m b e r 2006, be fore he re c e ive d a ny thre a te ning phonec a l ls. The re a fte r, B ara l te stifie d that he c ould not re m e m

be r whe n he re c e ive d thre at e ning phonec a lls a nd he ne ve r
3e xpla ine d his c onflic ting te stim ony a bout whe the r M a oists c a lle d and thre ate ne d him be fore he a tte m

pte d to ta ke ba c k his fa

m ily ’ s fa rm . The IJ ga ve B ara l a

n opportunity

to c orre c t his te stim ony , a c knowle dging that “ e ve n dat e s a

re not tha t im porta nt if y ou c an re m e m

be r the se que nc e of e ve nts . . . . it se e m s logic a l tha

t y ou would a

t le a st re m e m

be r wha t ha ppe ne d first, wha

t ha ppe ne d ne xt, wha

t ha ppe n e d ne xt, the se que nc e of e ve nts.” B ara l m e re ly re plie d that he wa s c onfuse d. This re c ord doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the IJ’ s
a dve rse c re dibility

finding wa s unsupporte d. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the IJ’ s a nd B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t disc re pa nc ie s be twe e n

B ara l ’ s c orroborating e vide nc e and his he aring te stim ony unde rm ine d his c re dibility . The IJ obse rve d tha t a ddre sse s liste d

on B ara l ’ s doc um e nta

ry e vide nc e c o nflic te d with his te stim ony tha t his fa m i ly wa s inte rna lly displa c e d. B ara l’ s fathe r se nt a

le tte r in support of B ara l’ s a sy lum a pplic a tion. The
re turn a ddre ss wa s the loc a tion of theB ara l fam ily farm . B ut B ara l te stifie d tha t his fa m ily ha s not live d in Arba

B ija y a sinc e 2003, whe n M a oists se iz e d the farm . Ac c ording to B ara l, at the tim e of the he aring in 2010, his pa re nts re m a ine d displa c e d from the ir farm and we re living in Pokha ra . B ara l “ c annot show tha t the
re c o rd c om

pe ls a diffe re nt inte rpre t a tion [of his te stim ony ] , a n d tha t is fa ta l to [his]
4c ha lle nge to the a dve rse c re d ibility de t e rm inat ion.” Garc ia v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 790–91 (9th C ir. 2014). Se c ond, the Age nc y

a lte rna tive ly

de nie d B ara l’ s a

pplic a tion for withholding of re m ova l be c a

u s e B ara l did not e sta

blish thene c e ssa

ry ne xus be twe e n his
c onfronta tions with the

M a o i sts a

nd his politic a l opinion. B ara l a rgue s the re c ord
c om pe ls re v e rsa l of this finding. We a ga in disa gre e . B ara l wa s re quire d to “produc e e vide nc e from whic h it is re a sona

ble to be lie ve tha

t the ha rm wa s m otiva

te d, at le ast in part , by an a c tua l or im plie d prote c te d ground.” Parussimov

a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 739 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting Borja v . IN

S , 175 F.3d 732, 735–36 (9th C ir. 1999) (e n ba nc ) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)). 1 The re c o rd doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t B ara l
m e t this burde n. B ara l did not produc e e vide nc e tha t M a oists se iz e d his fa

m ily ’ s farm be c a use of his politic a l opinion. B ara l te stifie d tha t M a oists a ssa

ulte d a nd de ta ine d him

in De c e m

be r 2006 be c a

use he trie d to re take the farm , not be c a use of

1 The B IA he ld tha

t B ara l “ ha s not shown tha t an e n um e ra te d ground is a c e n tra l re a son for the fe are d pe rse c ution.” The “ one c e ntra l re a son” sta nda rd de rive s from

the R EAL ID Ac t, a

nd re pla c e d this c ourt’ s “ m ixe d m o tive s” jurisprude nc e in a sy lum

c a se s. Parussimov

a , 555 F.3d a

t 740; se e also 8 U.S.C
. § 1158(b)(1)(B )(i) (prote c te d ground m u st be “ a t le a st one c e ntra l re a son for pe rse c uting thea

pplic an t” ). W e do not a ddre ss whe the r the “ one c e ntra l re a son” sta nda rd a lso a pplie s to withholding of re m ova l c la im s be c a

use we c onc lude tha

t B ara l’ s pe tition fa ils unde r the m ore ge ne rous “ m ixe d m otive s” sta nda rd. 5his m e m

be rship in a

pa rtic ula r politic a l pa

rty . This te stim ony

is insuffic i e nt to
e sta blish there quisite ne xus. Se e Ze tino v
. Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010). B ara l a lso fa i le d to e sta blish tha t M a oists ta

rge te d him

in July 2007 (the
m otorbike inc ide nt) “ on a c c ount of” his politic a l opinion. B ara l te stifie d tha t M a o ists a tta c ke d him

while he wa s wa lking to the Ne pa li C ongre ss Pa

rty ’ s offic e , but he did not te stify that his a tta c ke rs kne w he wa s a

pa rty m e m be r. This re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the a tta c k wa s a

nything m o re tha

n a random
a c t of viole nc e . Although B ara l te stifie d tha t he re c e ive d thre a te n ing phonec a lls from M a oists be c a

use of his m e m

be rship in theNe pa li C ongre ss Pa rty , the se c a lls
a lone do not c o m

pe l t he c onc lusion tha

t the De c e m

be r 2006 a s sa

ult a nd July 2007
m otorbike inc ide nt bore the re quisite ne xus to a prote c te d ground. 3. B ara l ha s not shown tha t “ it is m o re like ly

tha n not” he will be torture d upon his re turn to Nepa l, so he ha s not e sta b lishe d e ligibility for re lie f unde r C AT. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). The inc ide n ts of a buse B ara l suffe re d at the ha nds of M a o ists, a ssum ing B ara l te stifie d c re dibly , do not riseto the le ve l of torture . B ara l did not te stify

tha t M a o ists injure d him

whe n he a tte m

pte d to ta ke ba c k his fa m ily ’ s farm

in De c e m

be r 2006, a

nd he te stifie d tha

t he suffe re d

only m inor phy sic a l injurie s during the2007 m otorbike inc ide nt. The 2008 Sta te De p a rtm e nt
6R e port supports the c onc lusion tha

t M a oists c om

m it hum an rights a

buse s in Ne pa l, but it doe s not c o m

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t B ara l in pa

rtic ula r will be a vic tim
. Se e Garc ia , 749 F.3d a

t 792. PE T IT IO N DISM ISSE D in par t and DE NIE D in par t. Ea c h pa rty sha l l be ar its own c osts.

7