19-2467 Hamal v. Garland 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. At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 14th day of May, two thousand twenty one. Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________________ RAJESH HAMAL, Petitioner, v. 19-2467 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________________________ Appearing for Appellant: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Bhatta Law & Associates, New York, N.Y. Appearing for Appellee: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General (John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Robbin K. Blaya, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation) for Merrick B. Garland, United States Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review be and it hereby is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Petitioner Rajesh Hamal, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of a July 12, 2019 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a February 19, 2019 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Hamal asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. Hamal asserts that he suffered past persecution as a member of the Nepali Congress Party (“NCP”), which he joined in 2015. Hamal testified that members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) (“Maoists”), the ruling party in the government, threatened and beat him. On October 18, 2017, four Maoists threatened and assaulted him as he hung NCP posters. The Maoists asked him to support the Maoist party and threatened him if he did not do so. They also tore down the posters. On November 21, 2017, six Maoists wielded sticks and beat Hamal for approximately four minutes, causing bleeding from his nose and mouth. Hamal was hospitalized for six or seven hours. He sustained wounds to his hands, legs, and back, and the injuries took a week to heal. The Maoists also verbally threatened Hamal seven or eight times. When Hamal tried to report the November 2017 incident to the police, the police declined to take the report due to its political nature. The same night that Hamal attempted to report the incident to the police, Maoists …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals