Sangeet B C v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1472 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1472 SANGEET B C, a/k/a BC Sangeet Chettri, a/k/a Sangeet BC, H, a/k/a Sangeet Baniya Petitioner,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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 ( Board ) order of an dismissing denying removal order and ( CAT ). his of his the Board applications withholding under Immigration Appeals from appeal of the immigration judge s for the asylum, withholding Convention Against from Torture 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 wellfounded fear nationality, of persecution membership political opinion[.] applicants have the in on a account of particular social burden by religion, group, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). burden of proving that definition of a refugee to qualify for relief. this race, showing that they were they or Asylum satisfy the They may satisfy subjected to past persecution or that they have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground such as political opinion. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) (2012). See 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. this heightened However, if burden, applicants withholding cannot of removal demonstrate If they meet is asylum mandatory. eligibility, their applications for withholding of removal will necessarily fail as well. When the Board adopts the immigration judge s decision and includes decisions. its own reasoning, this court reviews both 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 substantial evidence. finding unless adjudicator contrary. the would findings are affirmed if supported by Substantial evidence exists to support a evidence have been was such compelled that to any reasonable conclude to the 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 narrowed, 2005. Cir. mixed-motive however, by the legal principles passage of the were REAL somewhat ID Act of See Abdel-Rahman v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 444, 453 n.12 (4th 2007). The Act revised the INA to provide that the applicant must establish that the protected ground asserted was or will be at least applicant. 8 one U.S.C. central reason § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) for persecuting (2006). The the Board addressed this statutory change and noted that its standard in mixed-motive cases amendment. Matter of J-B-N-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 208, 214 (BIA 2007). has not been radically altered by the As before, the protected ground cannot play a minor role . . . [and] cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm. central reason respondent. Id.; see Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164 (4th Cir. 2009). fact. for Rather, it must be a persecuting the The question of motivation is one of 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 political activities. guerilla group is purposes and not because of his Resistance to forced recruitment by a not a protected ground. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 815-16 (1992). INS v. Elias- 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 Cir. 2007). (11th 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, 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 5
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.
