Court Opinion

ID: 9352943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 16:00:33.562206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:06.588660
License: Public Domain

20-1718
     Khatri v. Garland
                                                                               BIA
                                                                          Wright, IJ
                                                                       A205 657 543
                              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 APPENDIX
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.

 1        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
 3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 4   New York, on the 10th day of January, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
 9            WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
10            EUNICE C. LEE,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   JHAM BAHADUR KHATRI,
15            Petitioner,
16
17                       v.                                  20-1718
18                                                           NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                     Jason Schaffer, New York, NY.
25
26   FOR RESPONDENT:                     Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
27                                       Attorney General; Melissa Neiman-
28                                       Kelting, Assistant Director;
 1                                Elizabeth K. Ottman, Trial
 2                                Attorney, Office of Immigration
 3                                Litigation, United States
 4                                Department of Justice, Washington,
 5                                DC.

 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 petition for review

9    is DENIED.

10       Petitioner Jham Bahadur Khatri, a native and citizen of

11   Nepal, seeks review of a May 7, 2020, decision of the BIA

12   affirming a July 18, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge

13   (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of

14   removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

15   (“CAT”).     In re Jham Bahadur Khatri, No. A205 657 543 (B.I.A.

16   May 7, 2020), aff’g No. A205 657 543 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City

17   July 18, 2018).     We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

18   underlying facts and procedural history.

19       We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the

20   BIA, that is, excluding the demeanor finding on which the BIA

21   did not rely.     See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426

22   F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).      The applicable standards of

23   review are well established.      See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)

24   (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless
                                   2
 1   any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to

 2   the contrary.”); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76

 3   (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination

 4   under a substantial-evidence standard).          “Considering the

 5   totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a

 6   trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the

 7   demeanor,   candor,   or   responsiveness   of   the   applicant   or

 8   witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or

 9   witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or

10   witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal

11   consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of

12   such statements with other evidence of record . . . without

13   regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood

14   goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other

15   relevant factor.”     8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).      “We defer

16   . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the

17   totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable

18   fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.”

19   Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008);

20   accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76.        Substantial evidence

21   supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.

                                      3
 1         Khatri   alleged    that      Maoists   threatened    him   and   his

 2   family, beat and kidnapped him, and beat his wife on account

 3   of their support of the opposing National Democratic Party.

 4   In concluding that this claim was not credible, the agency

 5   reasonably     relied    on   the    inconsistency     between    Khatri’s

 6   testimony that he had reviewed his written statement with

 7   someone at his attorney’s office and knew its contents and

 8   his later allegation that he did not know the contents, a

 9   contradiction between Khatri’s written statement and some of

10   his   testimony    regarding        whether    he    had   any    personal

11   interaction with the Maoists before he was kidnapped, and a

12   contradiction     between     his    testimony   and   a   police   letter

13   regarding the date his wife was assaulted.                  See 8 U.S.C.

14   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

15         Khatri waived any challenge to the first ground by not

16   addressing it in his appellate brief.               See Yueqing Zhang v.

17   Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) (issues not

18   argued in briefs are waived).             As to the second, Khatri’s

19   written statement and his testimony on cross-examination were

20   inconsistent as to whether Maoists threatened him directly a

21   few months prior to his kidnapping, or whether the kidnapping

                                           4
 1   was their first direct interaction with Maoists and earlier

 2   threats were directed to his father.        Contrary to Khatri’s

 3   argument, confusion resulting from differing calendars could

 4   not resolve this discrepancy because it concerned whether the

 5   kidnapping was Khatri’s first or second interaction with the

 6   Maoists, not the dates of those interactions.      The agency was

 7   not   required   to   accept    Khatri’s   explanation   that   the

 8   inconsistencies occurred because he was describing traumatic

 9   events that occurred more than a decade earlier, particularly

10   as he had provided a specific description including dates in

11   his written statement.    See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77,

12   80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a

13   plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to

14   secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-

15   finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal

16   quotation marks omitted)).

17         Khatri also testified that his wife was assaulted on a

18   different date than the date reflected on a police letter

19   regarding that assault.        The IJ was not required to accept

20   Khatri’s explanation that the letter was mistaken as he

21   submitted it to corroborate his claim.       Id.; see also Siewe

                                       5
 1   v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Decisions as

 2   to . . . which of competing inferences to draw are entirely

 3   within the province of the trier of fact.”(internal quotation

 4   marks omitted)).

 5         These inconsistencies call into question Khatri’s and

 6   his wife’s interactions with the Maoists, and thus constitute

 7   substantial evidence for the agency’s adverse credibility

 8   determination.       See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also

 9   Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020)

10   (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from

11   showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible.

12   Multiple      inconsistencies      would      so   preclude     even   more

13   forcefully.”).        The   agency   properly      concluded    that   this

14   determination       was   dispositive    of    asylum,   withholding       of

15   removal, and CAT relief, because all three of Khatri’s claims

16   are   based    on   the   same   factual   predicate.         See   Paul   v.

17   Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).                 Under these

18   circumstances, the agency was not required to explicitly

19   discuss the background evidence of conditions in Nepal, or

20   separately analyze Khatri’s CAT claim.             See id.; see also Zhi

21   Yun Gao v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 86, 87 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding

                                          6
 1   that where the agency gives “reasoned consideration to the

 2   petition, and ma[kes] adequate findings,” it is not required

 3   to “expressly parse or refute on the record each individual

 4   argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner”

 5   (quotation marks omitted)).    Moreover, Khatri does not cite

 6   any country conditions evidence to support his CAT claim.

 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

                                    7