Court Opinion

ID: 9373842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:08:54.340924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:43.805732
License: Public Domain

21-6100
     Chhetri v. Garland
                                                                                   BIA
                                                                            Schoppert, IJ
                                                                           A202 081 120

                               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 22nd day of February, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            PIERRE N. LEVAL,
 9            RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
10            BETH ROBINSON,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   BUDDHI BAHADUR CHHETRI,
15            Petitioner,
16
17                        v.                                     21-6100
18                                                               NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                      Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq.
25                                        New York, NY.
26
27   FOR RESPONDENT:                      Brian M. Boynton, Acting
28                                        Assistant Attorney General; Dawn
 1                                   S. Conrad, Senior Litigation
 2                                   Counsel; Rachel P. Berman-Vaporis,
 3                                   Trial Attorney, Office of
 4                                   Immigration Litigation, United
 5                                   States Department of Justice,
 6                                   Washington, DC.
 7
 8       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

 9   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

10   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

11   is DENIED.

12       Petitioner Buddhi Bahadur Chhetri, a native and citizen

13   of Nepal, seeks review of a January 27, 2021 decision of the

14   BIA affirming an August 29, 2018 decision of an Immigration

15   Judge   (“IJ”)      denying   Chhetri’s       application    for   asylum,

16   withholding    of    removal,   and       relief   under   the   Convention

17   Against Torture (“CAT”).        In re Buddhi Bahadur Chhetri, No.

18   A202 081 120 (B.I.A. Jan. 27, 2021), aff’g No. A202 081 120

19   (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 29, 2018).              We assume the parties’

20   familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

21       Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s

22   and the BIA’s opinions.         See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland

23   Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006).                We review adverse

24   credibility determinations under the substantial evidence

25   standard.     See Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F3d 67, 76 (2d

26   Cir. 2018).         “[T]he administrative findings of fact are

                                           2
 1   conclusive    unless       any    reasonable           adjudicator      would    be

 2   compelled    to    conclude       to     the    contrary.”          8   U.S.C.    §

 3   1252(b)(4)(B).

 4          “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all

 5   relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility

 6   determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s

 7   or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and

 8   whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances

 9   under    which     the    statements           were     made),    the    internal

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

11   such    statements       with    other       evidence     of     record.”       Id.

12   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).           “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility

13   determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,

14   it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an

15   adverse credibility ruling.”                 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534

16   F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d

17   at     76.       Substantial      evidence            supports    the    agency’s

18   determination that Chhetri was not credible as to his claim

19   that upper caste Maoists attacked and threatened him on

20   account of his caste and political support for the Nepali

21   Congress Party.

                                              3
 1       The agency reasonably relied on the following record

 2   inconsistencies: (1) Chhetri stated during his credible-fear

 3   interview and in his asylum application that individuals from

 4   an upper caste targeted him on account of his caste and not

 5   on account of his political opinion,          but he later attested

 6   in an affidavit and testified that the upper caste individuals

 7   were Maoists who targeted him on account of his caste as well

 8   as his support for the Nepali Congress Party and refusal to

 9   join their party; and (2) he attested in his affidavit that

10   Maoists broke his hand and rendered him unconscious and that

11   he regained consciousness before being taken to the hospital,

12   but he testified that he had broken his arm rather than his

13   hand and that he had regained consciousness in the hospital.

14   See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Likai Gao v. Barr,

15   968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single

16   inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ

17   was compelled to find him credible.         Multiple inconsistencies

18   would   so   preclude   even    more   forcefully.”).      Chhetri’s

19   explanations    were    not    compelling    because   there   is   no

20   indication in the record that he did not understand the

21   interpreters who translated at his credible-fear interview

22   and helped prepare his application, and he merely restated

                                        4
 1   earlier statements regarding his injuries.         See Majidi v.

 2   Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must

 3   do   more    than   offer   a   plausible   explanation    for   his

 4   inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate

 5   that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit

 6   his testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

 7        These inconsistencies provide substantial evidence for

 8   the adverse credibility determination, which was dispositive

 9   of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.               See

10   8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d

11   148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).

12        For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

13   DENIED.     All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

14   stays VACATED.

15                                   FOR THE COURT:
16                                   Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
17                                   Clerk of Court

                                       5