16-948
Poudel v. Garland
BIA
Verrillo, IJ
A205 811 487
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 TO 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 15th day of March, two thousand twenty-two.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 KISHOR KUMAR POUDEL, AKA ANIL
14 POUDEL, AKA ANIL PAUDEL,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 16-948
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Esq., Bhatta
25 Law & Associates, New York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad,
29 Assistant Director; Kristin
30 Moresi, Trial Attorney, Office of
31 Immigration Litigation, United
1 States Department of Justice,
2 Washington, DC.
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Kishor Kumar Poudel, a native and citizen of
9 Nepal, seeks review of a March 3, 3016, decision of the BIA
10 affirming an August 14, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge
11 (“IJ”) denying Poudel’s application for asylum. In re Kishor
12 Kumar Poudel, No. A205 811 487 (B.I.A. Mar. 3, 2016), aff’g
13 No. A205 811 487 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Aug. 14, 2014). We
14 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
15 procedural history.
16 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions.
17 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d
18 Cir. 2006). The standards of review are well established.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111,
20 114 (2d Cir. 2010). An applicant for asylum “must establish
21 that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
22 social group, or political opinion was or will be at least
23 one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C.
2
1 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). “[A]sylum may be granted where there is
2 more than one motive for mistreatment, as long as at least
3 one central reason for the mistreatment is on account of a
4 protected ground.” Acharya v. Holder, 761 F.3d 289, 297 (2d
5 Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
6 The agency did not err in concluding that Poudel failed
7 to establish that his political opinion was a central reason
8 that Maoists targeted him. To demonstrate that persecution
9 or a well-founded fear of persecution is on account of an
10 applicant’s political opinion, the applicant must “show,
11 through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the
12 persecutor’s motive to persecute arises from the applicant’s
13 political belief,” rather than from the persecutor’s own
14 opinion. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d
15 Cir. 2005) (emphasis added).
16 Poudel repeatedly testified that Maoists targeted him
17 because they wanted to recruit him to increase their ranks
18 given his extensive network and because he refused to give
19 them money they had demanded. He mentioned his own political
20 affiliation only once when discussing why Maoists had
21 targeted his brother; but, even then, he did not state that
3
1 Maoists were motivated by his political opinion rather than
2 in recruiting members from another party and he again stated
3 that they were motivated to obtain money. “[T]he mere
4 existence of a generalized ‘political’ motive
5 underlying . . . recruitment is inadequate to establish (and,
6 indeed, goes far to refute) the proposition that [an
7 applicant] fears persecution on account of political opinion”
8 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992) (emphasis in
9 original), and “harm motivated purely by wealth is not
10 persecution,” Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 73–74 (2d
11 Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding
12 that Poudel failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground
13 as required for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i);
14 Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 545.
15 Because the nexus finding was dispositive of asylum, we
16 do not reach the agency’s alternative bases for denying
17 asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); INS v. Bagamasbad,
18 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies
19 are not required to make findings on issues the decision of
20 which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). We lack
21 jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of withholding of
4
1 removal and CAT protection because Poudel did not raise those
2 forms of relief on appeal to the BIA. See Karaj v. Gonzales,
3 462 F.3d 113, 119 (2d Cir. 2006).
4 Finally, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its
5 discretion in declining to consider the additional evidence
6 Poudel submitted for the first time on appeal. The BIA is an
7 appellate body that may not consider such evidence outside
8 the context of a motion to remand. See 8 C.F.R.
9 § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (2021); Matter of Fedorenko, 19 I. & N.
10 Dec. 57, 74 (B.I.A. 1984) (recognizing that, as an appellate
11 body, the BIA may decline to review evidence proffered for
12 the first time on appeal); see also De La Rosa v. Holder, 598
13 F.3d 103, 108 n.2 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting that it is improper
14 for the BIA to consider new evidence on appeal).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED.
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
19 Clerk of Court
5