PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 17-2765 ______________ YAGENDRA TILIJA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (A208-925-410) Immigration Judge: Daniel A. Morris ______________ Argued November 27, 2018 ______________ Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: July 12, 2019) Stephen A. Fogdall Rachel A.H. Horton [ARGUED] Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis 1600 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Petitioner Sharon M. Clay Andrew J. Oliveira [ARGUED] United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent ______________ OPINION GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge. Petitioner Yagendra Tilija appeals a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”), which denied his motion to remand and dismissed his appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). For the following reasons, we will grant Tilija’s petition for review, conclude as a matter of law that the new evidence Tilija 2 submitted established a prima facie asylum claim, and remand for further proceedings. I. Factual and Procedural Background Tilija is a Nepali native and citizen who was charged removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(i)(I) and applied for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“the Act”) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 Tilija joined the Nepali Congress Party (“NCP”) in 2013, which is the political rival of the Maoist Party. Tilija campaigned on behalf of the NCP by attending meetings, putting up posters, participating in rallies, distributing pamphlets, and canvassing door-to-door. Maoists told Tilija to join their party and warned him not to participate in the election. On an occasion where Tilija was campaigning for the NCP, a group of Maoists attacked him, throwing stones at Tilija and injuring his face above his right eye and along the side of his face, resulting in six stitches. Maoists came to Tilija’s home and told his father that if they saw Tilija, they would kill him. When Tilija was discharged from the hospital, he stayed at a hotel instead of going to his home in the village due to this threat. Tilija, feeling unsafe, moved to Pokhara, a town four hours away from his home. When he reached Pokhara, Maoists called him and told him that the y would kill him the 1 Although Tilija seeks, in addition to asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief in his motion to remand, we conclude that he establishes a prima facie case for asylum. Therefore, we need not address these alternate forms of relief. See Shardar v. Att’y Gen., 503 F.3d 308, 312 n.4 (3d Cir. 2007). 3 next time they found him. A month later, Maoists called Tilija again, telling him to leave the NCP and warning him that if he did not, they would kill him. Maoists called a third ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals