21-6100 Chhetri v. Garland BIA Schoppert, IJ A202 081 120

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 22nd day of February, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 BETH ROBINSON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 BUDDHI BAHADUR CHHETRI, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 21-6100 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq. 25 New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; Dawn 1 S. Conrad, Senior Litigation 2 Counsel; Rachel P. Berman-Vaporis, 3 Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

11 is DENIED.

12 Petitioner Buddhi Bahadur Chhetri, a native and citizen

13 of Nepal, seeks review of a January 27, 2021 decision of the

14 BIA affirming an August 29, 2018 decision of an Immigration

15 Judge (“IJ”) denying Chhetri’s application for asylum,

16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Buddhi Bahadur Chhetri, No.

18 A202 081 120 (B.I.A. Jan. 27, 2021), aff’g No. A202 081 120

19 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 29, 2018). We assume the parties’

20 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

21 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s

22 and the BIA’s opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland

23 Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2006). We review adverse

24 credibility determinations under the substantial evidence

25 standard. See Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions,

(2d

26 Cir. 2018). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are

2 1 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

2 compelled to conclude to the contrary.”

1252(b)(4)(B).

4 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all

5 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility

6 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s

7 or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and

8 whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances

9 under which the statements were made), the internal

10 consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of

11 such statements with other evidence of record.”

12 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility

13 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,

14 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an

15 adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534

, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao,

. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s

18 determination that Chhetri was not credible as to his claim

19 that upper caste Maoists attacked and threatened him on

20 account of his caste and political support for the Nepali

21 Congress Party.

3 1 The agency reasonably relied on the following record

2 inconsistencies: (1) Chhetri stated during his credible-fear

3 interview and in his asylum application that individuals from

4 an upper caste targeted him on account of his caste and not

5 on account of his political opinion, but he later attested

6 in an affidavit and testified that the upper caste individuals

7 were Maoists who targeted him on account of his caste as well

8 as his support for the Nepali Congress Party and refusal to

9 join their party; and (2) he attested in his affidavit that

10 Maoists broke his hand and rendered him unconscious and that

11 he regained consciousness before being taken to the hospital,

12 but he testified that he had broken his arm rather than his

13 hand and that he had regained consciousness in the hospital.

14 See

(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Likai Gao v. Barr,

15

, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single

16 inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ

17 was compelled to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies

18 would so preclude even more forcefully.”). Chhetri’s

19 explanations were not compelling because there is no

20 indication in the record that he did not understand the

21 interpreters who translated at his credible-fear interview

22 and helped prepare his application, and he merely restated

4 1 earlier statements regarding his injuries. See Majidi v.

2 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must

3 do more than offer a plausible explanation for his

4 inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate

5 that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit

6 his testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

7 These inconsistencies provide substantial evidence for

8 the adverse credibility determination, which was dispositive

9 of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See

10

(b)(1)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales,

, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).

12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

13 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

14 stays VACATED.

15 FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 17 Clerk of Court

5