Filed: Oct. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1472 SANGEET B C, a/k/a BC Sangeet H, a/k/a Sangeet Baniya Chettri, a/k/a Sangeet BC, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 18, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dilli Raj Bhatta, THE BHATTA LAW FIRM, Jackson H
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1472 SANGEET B C, a/k/a BC Sangeet H, a/k/a Sangeet Baniya Chettri, a/k/a Sangeet BC, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 18, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dilli Raj Bhatta, THE BHATTA LAW FIRM, Jackson He..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1472
SANGEET B C, a/k/a BC Sangeet H, a/k/a Sangeet Baniya
Chettri, a/k/a Sangeet BC,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 18, 2012 Decided: October 1, 2012
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dilli Raj Bhatta, THE BHATTA LAW FIRM, Jackson Heights, New
York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant
Director, Sheri R. Glaser, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sangeet B C, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
order denying his applications for asylum, withholding from
removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.
The INA vests in the Attorney General the
discretionary power to grant asylum to aliens who qualify as
refugees. A refugee is someone “who is unable or unwilling to
return to” his native country “because of persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). Asylum
applicants have the burden of proving that they satisfy the
definition of a refugee to qualify for relief. They may satisfy
this burden by showing that they were subjected to past
persecution or that they have a well-founded fear of persecution
on account of a protected ground such as political opinion. See
8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) (2012). If the applicant establishes
past persecution, he has the benefit of a rebuttable presumption
of a well-founded fear of persecution.
Aliens face a heightened burden of proof to qualify
for withholding of removal. They must show a clear probability
2
of persecution on account of a protected ground. If they meet
this heightened burden, withholding of removal is mandatory.
However, if applicants cannot demonstrate asylum eligibility,
their applications for withholding of removal will necessarily
fail as well.
When the Board adopts the immigration judge’s decision
and includes its own reasoning, this court reviews both
decisions. This court will uphold the Board’s decision unless
it is manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.
The standard of review of the agency’s findings is narrow and
deferential. Factual findings are affirmed if supported by
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence exists to support a
finding unless the evidence was such that any reasonable
adjudicator would have been compelled to conclude to the
contrary. Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272-74 (4th Cir.
2011).
This court recognized a “mixed-motive” standard
in Menghesha v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 142, 148 (4th Cir. 2006), and
held that “an asylum applicant need only show that the alleged
persecutor is motivated in part to persecute him on account of a
protected trait.” The court recognized that “persecutors often
have multiple motives for punishing an asylum applicant, [and]
the INA requires only that an applicant prove that one of those
motives is prohibited[.]”
Id.
3
These mixed-motive legal principles were somewhat
narrowed, however, by the passage of the REAL ID Act of
2005. See Abdel-Rahman v. Gonzales,
493 F.3d 444, 453 n.12 (4th
Cir. 2007). The Act revised the INA to provide that the
applicant must establish that the protected ground asserted “was
or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the
applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (2006). The Board
addressed this statutory change and noted that its standard in
mixed-motive cases “has not been radically altered by the
amendment.” Matter of J-B-N-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 208, 214 (BIA
2007). As before, “the protected ground cannot play a minor
role . . . [and] cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial,
or subordinate to another reason for harm. Rather, it must be a
central reason for persecuting the
respondent.” Id.; see Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder,
556 F.3d
159, 164 (4th Cir. 2009). The question of motivation is one of
fact. Matter of S-P-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 486, 490 (BIA 1996).
Sangeet argues that he was abused by the Maoists in
large part because of his political activities. He notes that
he testified that he was a member of a political party that was
opposed by the Maoists, that the Maoists were aware of his party
membership and that the Maoists attempted to get him to quit his
political party and join the Maoist army.
4
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Sangeet failed to show he was targeted because of
his political opinion or any other protected ground. The
evidence clearly supports the finding that he was targeted for
money and for recruitment purposes and not because of his
political activities. Resistance to forced recruitment by a
guerilla group is not a protected ground. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 815-16 (1992). Likewise, refusal to pay
money to a guerilla group upon their demand is not a protected
ground. See Rivera v. Attorney Gen.,
487 F.3d 815, 821 (11th
Cir. 2007). Thus, the record supports the finding that Sangeet
was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. We note
that our review of the record shows that the immigration judge
considered the totality of the circumstances.
We also conclude that substantial evidence supports
the finding that Sangeet was not eligible for relief under the
CAT.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
5
