Acharya v. Holder
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15070
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Acharya, a Nepali citizen and former police officer from a family active in the Nepali Congress, credibly testified that Maoists threatened, abducted, and attacked him and his family in the context of Nepal’s civil conflict.
- Maoists told Acharya and his family members that their actions related to both his police work and his (and his family’s) Nepali Congress membership; a Maoist dispatch later threatened his life and seized family land.
- Acharya applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in the U.S.; the IJ found him credible but denied relief, concluding political opinion was not the "central reason" for persecution.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial, adopting the view that Acharya had not shown that political affiliation was one central reason for targeting.
- Acharya petitioned for review in the Second Circuit, arguing the IJ applied the wrong (overly stringent) mixed-motive standard and mischaracterized record evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ applied correct nexus standard for mixed-motive asylum claims | Acharya: IJ required political opinion to be "the central" reason; statute requires political opinion to be "at least one central reason" — mixed-motive claims are viable | Government: IJ’s findings supported denial; BIA used the correct standard on appeal, error was harmless | Court: IJ applied incorrect and overly stringent standard; remand required |
| Whether record shows persecution "on account of" political opinion | Acharya: Maoists’ statements and incidents show political affiliation was at least one central reason | Government: Maoists’ own writings emphasize police work as basis; other evidence favors non-political motive | Held: Agency ignored explicit perpetrator statements and mischaracterized record; evidence supports mixed-motive analysis |
| Whether withholding of removal claim can be denied because asylum standard failed | Acharya: Withholding requires separate analysis under higher standard | Government: If asylum fails, withholding necessarily fails | Held: IJ and BIA did no particularized withholding analysis; remand required for reconsideration |
| Whether CAT claim was properly rejected | Acharya: Government acquiescence or acquiescence standard applies; record requires analysis | Government: No evidence government would torture him; IJ stated no evidence of torture risk | Held: IJ misstated CAT standard (requiring affirmative consent); remand required for proper CAT analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Indradjaja v. Holder, 737 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2013) (treating IJ credibility finding as binding when BIA did not reject it)
- Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (mixed-motive asylum: applicant need show political opinion was "one central reason")
- Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017 (2d Cir. 1994) (multiple motives can co-exist; political motive need not be sole cause)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (applicants need not provide direct proof of persecutor’s motive)
- Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008) (agency must conduct mixed-motive analysis and consider evidence of protected-ground motivation)
- Uwais v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 478 F.3d 513 (2d Cir. 2007) (agency erred by treating mixed motives as mutually exclusive and by mischaracterizing record)
- Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281 (2d Cir. 2007) (applying incorrect legal standard raises question of law reviewable by court)
- Delgado v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 702 (2d Cir. 2007) (withholding and CAT claims require independent analysis; CAT standard does not demand proof of affirmative governmental consent)
- Xiao Kui Lin v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2009) (BIA may not make de novo factual findings on appeal)