Nabaraj Khatri v. Robert Wilkinson (9th Cir. 2021). · Go Syfert
Search
Nabaraj Khatri v. Robert Wilkinson (9th Cir. 2021). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nabaraj Khatri
v.
Robert Wilkinson
19-72271.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 10, 2021.
Unpublished  |  Agency

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NABARAJ KHATRI, No. 19-72271

Petitioner, Agency No. A206-986-668 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 8, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: HURWITZ and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and CORKER,*** District Judge.

Nabaraj Khatri, a citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an order of an

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Clifton L. Corker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.

[*2]

the harm he allegedly suffered. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (“consistency” is a relevant factor). This inconsistency, which goes to Khatri’s claim of persecution, is not “trivial.” See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043. Second, Khatri’s hearing testimony on his work for the Nepali Congress Party was inconsistent with his declaration and insufficiently detailed. See id. at 1040 (“lack of detail” is a relevant factor). In his hearing testimony, Khatri gave only general descriptions of his involvement with the Party, despite being repeatedly asked for more, and having submitted a declaration detailing his involvement in specific initiatives. Third, as the examples identified by the IJ illustrate, Khatri routinely gave unresponsive answers. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (“responsiveness” is a relevant factor). The IJ offered Khatri the opportunity to address these credibility concerns, see Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 2016), and his explanations do not compel a finding of credibility.

[*3]

letters sought donations and votes and noted displeasure with Khatri’s non- compliance with previous demands, but did not reference Khatri’s political opinion. The record supports the BIA’s finding that the letters could reasonably be explained by the fact that “Maoists threatened and extorted wide swaths of Nepali citizens.”

[*4]
1 Although Khatri recognized in his opening brief that our review is for substantial evidence, he argued for the first time in his reply that a different standard of review applies. We decline to address that argument. See Martinez–Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not raised and argued in an opening brief are forfeited).
2 Substantial evidence supports the finding that Khatri did not qualify for asylum or withholding of removal. Khatri had the burden of establishing that his political opinion was either “one central reason,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum), or “a reason,” id. § 1231(b)(3) (withholding), for any alleged persecution. As the BIA found, without credible testimony from Khatri, the remaining evidence, including threatening letters Khatri received from Maoists, did not “establish that a protected ground would be a reason, let alone a central reason, for the threats.” The
3 We lack jurisdiction to consider Khatri’s challenge to the denial of CAT relief because he did not raise this claim in his appeal to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.