Opinion ID: 4530362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: analysis

Text: A. Asylum To be eligible for asylum relief, a petitioner must establish that he has a “wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Persecution is defined as “threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a threat to life or freedom.” Camara v. Att’y Gen., 580 F.3d 196, 202 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). An applicant who has proved past persecution is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear of persecution; however relief will not be granted if the government is able to rebut that presumption by showing that “[t]he applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B). Gurung argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence and the record shows that he will be subjected to country-wide persecution if he were to return to Nepal. The IJ noted several discrepancies between Gurung’s testimony and other supporting evidence. These discrepancies concerned: the number of Maoists who attacked him, whether his attackers carried a knife, whether his parents witnessed the attack, the timing of the attack, and the reason why the police denied him aid. Citing to these inconsistencies, the IJ ultimately found that Gurung’s testimony was not credible based on the totality of the evidence. The IJ also determined that the threatening letters Gurung allegedly received from the Maoists were fabricated to 6 support his application.3 The IJ also gave Dr. Niraula’s testimony limited weight because he “does not have special training in Nepalese politics.” IJ Op. 5. Based on these inconsistencies and lack of supporting evidence, the IJ concluded that Gurung failed to demonstrate the well-founded fear of persecution required for an asylum claim. Given our highly deferential standard of review, we cannot conclude that either the IJ’s credibility determination, or the IJ’s ultimate determination that Gurung failed to meet his burden of proof, lacks support in the record. Alternatively, the IJ ruled that, even assuming Gurung had experienced past persecution, DHS successfully rebutted the presumption that Gurung had a well-founded fear of persecution. The IJ ruled that Gurung could relocate within Nepal, which he did prior to his arrival in the United States. The IJ pointed out that Gurung did not experience any threats or harm while living with his family in Pokhara. The IJ also noted that the Maoists who attacked him did not appear to be working in concert with a larger party structure, and accordingly, it would be reasonable for him to relocate safely within Nepal. This evidence—along with evidence that the attack on Gurung was “highly localized and rare”—supports the IJ’s conclusion that Gurung could reasonably relocate within Nepal. Id. Accordingly, we find that Gurung’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of his asylum claim lacks merit. 3 The IJ noted that the letters: (1) suspiciously stated the exact date and time of the Maoist attack; (2) included specific information that the Maoists would unlikely be aware of; and (3) were allegedly written by the main Maoist group in Nepal, which would be unlikely to carry out attacks against individuals. 7 B. Withholding of Removal To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must establish a “clear probability of persecution,” meaning that it is “more likely than not” that he would suffer persecution. Valdiviezo-Galdamez, 663 F.3d at 591. Because Gurung cannot meet the well-founded fear of persecution standard for asylum, it necessarily follows that he cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215, 223 (3d Cir. 2004) (“An alien who fails to establish that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution, so as to be eligible for asylum, necessarily will fail to establish the right to withholding of removal.”). C. CAT Protection To obtain CAT relief, Gurung must show that it is “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if removed to Nepal. Kibinda v. Att’y Gen., 477 F.3d 113, 123 (3d Cir. 2007). Under CAT, torture “is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment” that is inflicted by or “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1), (2). The IJ determined that Gurung did not suffer past torture within the meaning of the regulations. The IJ also ruled that Gurung could escape future torture by relocating within Nepal and noted that he had “successfully evaded his would-be torturers for over a year” while living in Nepal. IJ. Op. at 15. Furthermore, the IJ noted that Gurung presented no evidence that the Nepali government acquiesces in Maoist torture of its civilians. Thus, we conclude that the IJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and will uphold the BIA’s denial of Gurung’s request for relief under CAT. 8