Saurabh Karki v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen ( 2020 )

Case: 19-60700 Document: 00515474625 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 19-60700 FILED
Summary Calendar July 1, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
SAURABH KARKI,
Petitioner
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 679 041
Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Saurabh Karki, a citizen of Nepal, applied for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief the under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An
immigration judge refused to grant that relief, and the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) affirmed that order. We also AFFIRM.
We review the factual determination that an alien is not eligible for
asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief under the substantial evidence
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60700 Document: 00515474625 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
No. 19-60700
standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this
standard, “reversal is improper” unless we decide “not only that the evidence
supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Karki has not met this standard. As to past persecution, the BIA found
that Karki failed to establish that the Nepalese government was unwilling or
unable to control Karki’s alleged persecutors. We find that the evidence does
not compel a contrary conclusion. See Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 304
(1997). As to any well-founded fear of future persecution, the BIA found that
Karki had not shown that he was unable to relocate to another region of Nepal
to avoid any alleged persecution. Karki has failed to adequately brief any
challenge to the BIA’s findings regarding Karki’s ability or inability to relocate;
accordingly, he has abandoned the issue. See United States v. Scroggins, 599
F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th
Cir. 2003). In light of the foregoing, Karki has not shown error in connection
with the rejection of his asylum claim. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134.
Because Karki does not “meet the bar for asylum,” his withholding of
removal claim likewise fails. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
His CAT claim fails because he fails to show that the evidence compels the
conclusion, contrary to the BIA’s findings, that the harms that he suffered rise
to the level of torture and that the Nepalese government acquiesced or would
acquiesce in any alleged harmful acts. See Martinez Manzanares v. Barr, 925
F.3d 222, 228-29 (5th Cir. 2019).
For these reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Because we deny
his petition, Karki’s motion for stay pending review is DENIED as moot.
2