20

- 3666 Sam bah amphe v. Garland BIA Leeds , IJ A 206 475 801 

### 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 APP**  **ENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **” ). A**  **PARTY CITING 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 t**  **he Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 7**  **t h**  **d a**  **y of S**  **e p**  **t e**  **m b**  **e r**  **, two thousand**  **twenty**
  4 ** two.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES ,**  8 **DENNY CHIN ,**  9 **JOSEPH F. BIANCO ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **LALIT SAMBAHAMPHE ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 20** 

**- 3666**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Stuart Altman, Esq



### . , New York, NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian Boynton , Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General ; Zoe J. Heller, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel ; Karen 282 L. Melnik , Trial Attorney, Office 1 of Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, D C. 4
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 7

is DENIED

. 8

Petitioner Lalit Sambahamphe , a native and citizen of 9
Nepal , seeks review of a n October 2, 2020 , decision of the 10

BIA affirming a May 16, 2018 , decision of an Immigration Judge 11

(“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 12
removal, and relief un der the Convention Against Torture 13

(“CAT”)

. In re Lalit Sambahamphe , No. A 206 475 801 ( B.I.A. 14
Oct. 2, 2020 ), aff’g No. A 206 475 801 (Immig

. Ct. N .Y. City 15
May 16, 2018 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16
underlying facts and procedural history. 17

We have consider ed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 18
“for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 19

Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 20
factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of 21

law de novo

. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 22
(2d Cir. 2009)

. “ [ T ] he administrative findings of fact are 233 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 1
compelled to con clude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. 2

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)

. 3
Sambahamphe , who supports the Nepali Congress Party , 4
asserted a fear of persecution because Maoists threatened him 5
after he refused to join them in 2000 or 2001

. Because 6
Sambahamphe did not allege past persecution, he had the burden 7

to show a well

- founded fear of future persecutio n. 8 C.F.R. 8

§ 1208.13(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(iii). An asylum applicant “does 9

not have a well

- founded fear of persecution if [he] could 10
avoid persecution by relocating to anot her part of [his] 11
country of nationality

. . . if under all the circumstances 12
it would be reasonable to expect [him] to do so.” Id. 13

§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). 1 In determining whether relocation is 14

reasonable , the IJ “ should consider, but [is] not limited to 15
considering, whether the applicant would face other serious 16

harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil 17
strife within the country; administrative, economic, or 18
judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social 19

1 Citations are to the version of the regulations in effect at the time of the agency’s decision s .4 and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and 1

social and familial tie s.” Id. § 1208.13(b)(3). 2
The agency reasonably concluded that Sambahamphe did not 3

have a well

- founded fear of future persecution because he had 4
lived unharmed in Kathmandu for years after he was threatened 5
by Maoists in his home village. He left his village for 6

Kathmandu in 2001 after M aoists twice came to his home in and 7

threatened to kill him. He received no threats in Ka th mandu 8

and had no interactions with Maoists while he lived there 9
from 2001 to 2008 and again from 2011 until he left for the 10

Uni ted States. 2 Although his parents told him that Maoists 11
continued to look for him in their village and his wife was 12
attacked in that village in 2017, the Maoists did not threaten 13

him in Kathmandu and his wife had no further issues after she 14

relocated to Kathmandu. Moreover, the 2017 State Department 15
Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Nepal reflects 16
that the Maoists are part of the government and that there 17
have been prosecutions and return of property following the 18

2 Sambahamphe argues that the IJ erred in finding he did not receive threats, but it is clear from the context of the IJ’s discussion that the IJ recognized the threats in 2000 or 2001 and otherwise was referring to the period that Sambahamphe lived in Kathmandu.5 2006 peace accord

. Although the report also reflects that a 1
breakaway Maoist faction engaged in some violence and 2
intimidation during a 2013 election, such isolated incidents 3
by non

- governmental actors does not outweigh the evidence 4
that Sambahamphe can

— and did

— safely relo cate. See Singh v. 5

Garland , 11 F.4th 106, 115

– 17 (2d Cir. 2021) (holding that 6
allegation of persecution by members of a political party, 7
even one in power, is not an allegation of persecution by the 8
government, that applicant must show that someone in his 9
“particular circumstances would be unable to relocate to 10
avoid persecution” (quotation marks omitted)) ). 11
Sambahamphe’s ability to relocate is dispositive of asylum, 12
withholding of removal , and CAT protection. Lecaj v. Holder , 13
616 F.3d 111, 119

– 20 (2d Ci r. 2010) ( holding that applicant 14
who fails to demonstrate the chance of persecution required 15
for asylum “necessarily fails to demonstrate the clear 16
probability of future persecution required for withholding of 17

removal, and the more likely than not to be tortured standard 18
required for CAT relief” (quotation marks and citations 19
omitted) ). 20

216 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 2

stays VACATED. 3

FO R THE COURT: 4 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 5 Clerk of Court 6