Court Opinion

ID: 9387457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 00:00:33.118899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:13.490120
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60382         Document: 00516714423             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/17/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-60382                                     FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                                 April 17, 2023
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   Chetan Thapa,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A209 874 572
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Chetan Thapa, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of
   the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of the Immigration
   Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
   Thapa claimed that Maoists have targeted him for several years due to his
   political opinions and political activities.          Specifically, he claimed that

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60382      Document: 00516714423          Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/17/2023

                                    No. 22-60382

   Maoists once attacked him and others with stones because they were
   campaigning for a rival political candidate. On another occasion, Maoists
   attacked Thapa after he intervened to protect other family members from
   harm. However, Thapa alleges no physical injury requiring medical care
   beyond self care. He avers that Maoists still ask about his whereabouts as
   they continue to target and harass his family members.
          We review only the BIA’s decision, “unless the IJ’s decision has some
   impact on the BIA’s decision.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir.
   2009). Thus, the IJ’s decision will be considered insofar as it affected the
   BIA’s decision. Id. This court applies the substantial evidence standard in
   reviewing the BIA’s factual conclusions that an alien is not eligible for asylum
   or withholding of removal. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.
   2006); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Under the substantial evidence standard,
   reversal is improper unless we decide not only that the evidence supports a
   contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.” Chen, 470 F.3d
   at 1134 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
          Contrary to Thapa’s assertion, the record demonstrates that the IJ
   and BIA properly considered the cumulative effect of all the incidents of
   harm before concluding that, together, they did not amount to past
   persecution. Likewise, the record also demonstrates that the IJ and BIA
   properly considered Thapa’s claim of fear of future persecution before
   concluding that he failed to demonstrate that the government of Nepal would
   be unable or unwilling to protect him.
          Thapa fails to demonstrate that the evidence compels a conclusion
   contrary to that of the IJ and BIA with respect to his application for asylum.
   See Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 398 (5th Cir. 2020); Orellana-Monson v.
   Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii).
   Because he fails to meet the less stringent standard for asylum, he is

                                              2
Case: 22-60382     Document: 00516714423           Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/17/2023

                                    No. 22-60382

   necessarily unable to establish entitlement to withholding of removal. See Efe
   v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
          His petition for review is DENIED.

                                             3