Gopal Pyakurel v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1719 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1719 GOPAL PYAKUREL; LEKH KUMARI PYAKUREL, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 28, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Anthony P. Nicastro, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gopal Pyakurel ( Pyakurel ) and his wife, Lekh Kumari Pyakurel, natives and citizens of Nepal, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) order affirming the immigration judge s withholding of order removal, Against Torture. denying and their requests protection under for the asylum, Convention Pyakurel is the primary applicant for asylum; the claims of his wife are derivative of his application. U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) See 8 (2008). Pyakurel challenges the immigration judge s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review. We will uphold an adverse credibility determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d decision 533, 538 only if (4th the Cir. 2006), evidence and was so reverse the compelling Board s that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Having reviewed the administrative record and the Board s decision, we find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board, and the ruling that Pyakurel failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear 2 of future persecution as See 8 U.S.C. necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(I), (ii) (2006) (providing that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (same). compel a denial of different result, Pyakurel s we Because the record does not will application not for disturb asylum, the Board s withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
