19-82 Bhattrai v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A205 647 151 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 TO 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 February, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 DENNY CHIN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 KABITA BHATTRAI, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-82 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Ramesh K. Shrestha, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jody H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr. , 28 Deputy Director; Nancy F. Safavi, 1 Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Kabita Bhattrai, a native and citizen of 10 Nepal, seeks review of a December 13, 2018, decision of the 11 BIA affirming a November 9, 2017, decision of an Immigration 12 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 13 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 14 re Kabita Bhattrai, No. A 205 647 151 (B.I.A. Dec. 13, 2018), 15 aff’g No. A 205 647 151 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 9, 2017). 16 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 17 and procedural history. 18 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 19 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 20 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 21 applicable standards of review are well established. See 22 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 23 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings under the 2 1 substantial evidence standard and questions of law de novo). 2 An asylum applicant must show that she has suffered past 3 persecution, or has a well-founded fear of future 4 persecution, on account of race, religion, nationality, 5 membership in a particular social group, or political 6 opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. 7 § 1208.13(b). Past persecution creates a rebuttable …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals