Bhattarai v. Holder, Jr., 408 F. App'x 212

Bhattarai, a Nepalese citizen, entered the U.S. on an A‑2 visa circa August 8, 2004 to attend a program at the University of Wyoming.
In August 2005 he affirmatively applied for asylum and withholding based on political opinion and group membership; DHS denied and referred him for removal.
On January 31, 2006 he conceded removability but renewed his claims for asylum, withholding, and voluntary departure.
At a 2007 hearing, the IJ found Maoists targeted him for noncompliance with demands, and noted his political involvement and family risks in Nepal.
The BIA denied asylum on November 17, 2008; Bhattarai filed a combined Motion to Reconsider and Motion to Reopen on December 17, 2008 based on changed Nepalese conditions.
The BIA denied the combined motion on July 10, 2009; Bhattarai then sought judicial review, which this court accepted only for the changed-conditions reopening/reconsideration claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review	Bhattarai asserts jurisdiction to review the combined motion to reopen/reconsider.	Respondent contends the 30-day deadline forecloses review of asylum denial, but allows review of the reopened/reconsidered decision.	Court has jurisdiction to review the combined motion to reopen and reconsider.
Motion to reopen standard	New evidence showing improved Nepalese conditions could change the outcome.	New evidence does not demonstrate that it is likely to change the result.	BIA did not abuse its discretion; new evidence failed to show a prima facie likelihood of change.
CAT claim evaluation	Changed conditions could render CAT protection viable due to government changes.	Evidence of improvement does not meet the likelihood-of-torture standard.	BIA did not abuse discretion; Bhattarai failed to establish prima facie CAT protection.
Motion to reconsider central reason	BIA erred by not properly applying the standard that protected grounds must be a central reason.	Record shows political opinions did not play a central role; BIA reasonably relied on the record.	BIA did not abuse its discretion; no reversible error on central-reason grounds.

Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1995) (jurisdictional 30-day deadline for petitions for review)
Infanzon v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1359 (10th Cir. 2004) (jurisdictional review of BIA orders; 30-day rule)
Nahatchevska v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2003) (timeliness and review of BIA orders)
Belay-Gebru v. INS, 327 F.3d 998 (10th Cir. 2003) (motion to reconsider/Abudu factors; review standard)
Matter of Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1988) (prima facie case and burdens in reopening)
Dallakoti v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2010) (central-reason standard for political-opinion claims)
Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (U.S. 2002) (deference to agency findings when reviewing agency decisions)
Mickeviciute v. I.N.S., 327 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2003) (need for meaningful reasoning in BIA decisions)
Ismaiel v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2008) (agency must articulate its reasoning for review)
Turri v. I.N.S., 997 F.2d 1306 (10th Cir. 1993) (requirement of reasoned decision-making; Chenery context)
Matter of J-B-N & S-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2007) (central reason standard for protected grounds)