Ram Bahadur Gurung v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-873-679 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-1002]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RAM BAHADUR GURUNG,
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
June 28, 2016
July 15, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dilli Raj Bhatta, BHATTA LAW & ASSOCIATES, New York, New York,
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Raya
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Against Torture (CAT).
For the reasons set forth below, we deny
the petition for review.
Gurung bears the burden of establishing his eligibility for
relief from removal.
(4th Cir. 2013).
See Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 927
To be eligible for asylum, Gurung must show
that he cannot return to Nepal because he has a well-founded
fear of persecution on account of a protected ground.
persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution.
If Gurung demonstrates past persecution, he is entitled
to a rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear of
See Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272 (4th Cir.
demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that “[t]here
has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the
applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in
§ 208.13(b)(1)(i)(A) (2016); Essohou v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 518,
Pg: 3 of 5
Mapouya v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 396, 412 (6th Cir. 2007).
Gurung, like all aliens, faces a higher burden of proof to
establish his entitlement to withholding of removal because he
must show “a clear probability of persecution on account of a
Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 272 (internal quotation
Thus, if Gurung fails to meet his burden of
The scope of our review is narrow.
Hui Pan, 737 F.3d at
We will affirm so long as the decision “is not manifestly
contrary to law,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted), and is
supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a
whole, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
reverse the Board only if “the evidence . . . presented was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding
evidence that there was a fundamental change in circumstances
Pg: 4 of 5
The evidence shows that the 2013 elections were a
success for the National Congress Party (NCP) and a defeat for
See, e.g., Kumar v. INS, 204 F.3d 932, 934 (9th
political party can overcome the well-founded fear presumption).
The Maoists’ penchant for terror and human rights abuses was
diminished as evidenced by the large election turnout despite
within the Maoist party, resulting in some members supporting
See, e.g., Hoxhallari v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179,
185-86 (2d Cir. 2005) (fall of Communist Party in Albania and
Gurung failed to establish that, despite
finding that Gurung was not entitled to protection under the
To qualify for CAT relief, a petitioner bears the burden
of proof of showing “it is more likely than not that he or she
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2016).
To state a prima
facie case for CAT relief, a petitioner must show that he or she
will be subject to “severe pain or suffering, whether physical
or mental . . . by or at the instigation of or with the consent
Pg: 5 of 5
or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in
an official capacity.”
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (2016).
possibility that Gurung may be tortured.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?