Durga Gharti v. Attorney General United States


NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 19-3207 ____________ DURGA PRASAD GHARTI, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A208-926-527) Immigration Judge: Honorable John B. Carle _____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 30, 2020 ______________ Before: GREENAWAY, JR., PORTER, and MATEY, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: May 14, 2020) ____________ OPINION* ______________ GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge. Durga Prasad Gharti (“Petitioner” or “Gharti”) seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his request for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”). For the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition and remand to the BIA for further consideration of Gharti’s claim for asylum. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background Gharti is a Nepali national who has a wife and three children in Nepal. He arrived in the United States on March 23, 2016 without a valid entry document. Charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), Gharti appeared with counsel before the IJ pursuant to a Notice to Appear, conceded removability, and indicated that he would be applying for asylum, withholding of removal, and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Since Petitioner did not argue in his opening brief that the BIA erred in denying his CAT claim, we will consider that issue waived. Garcia v. Att’y Gen., 665 F.3d 496, 502 (3d Cir. 2011), as amended (Jan. 13, 2012). 2 At his hearing before the IJ, Gharti entered supporting documents into evidence, including a statement from his wife, a joint statement from his neighbors, proof of Nepali Congress Party membership, and a letter from the Nepali Congress Party. Gharti also testified to the following in support of his claims for relief: In 2007, Gharti left Nepal to work for a year as a cook for an American company serving United States troops in Iraq. After returning home in 2008, Muslims threatened him in February 2009 and angrily accused him of working for Americans who “were killing our Muslim brothers.” A.R. 114. In 2015, he was again threatened by Muslims when leaving his home on his way to work. This time, the threat came in the form of a gesture of slitting one’s throat. Gharti identifies as a general member of the Nepali Congress political party. He campaigned for the Nepali Congress Party during the 2013 election by hanging posters and urging the general public to vote for the Nepali Congress Party. On November 19, 2013 fifteen or sixteen people from the opposition party, the Maoist Party, entered his home and threatened that “if [he] didn’t support the Maoist [Party], there [would] be consequences,” and that they would kill him. A.R. 131. Gharti stated that he was frightened, so ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals