Bhattrai v. Garland
19-82
| 2d Cir. | Feb 10, 2022Background
- Petitioner Kabita Bhattrai, a Nepali national, appealed the BIA’s December 13, 2018 decision affirming an IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- Bhattrai claimed caste-based persecution in her home village; her parents and children relocated to Kathmandu in January 2016.
- Family members in Kathmandu had not been harassed and Bhattrai lived in Kathmandu unharmed for three months before traveling to the U.S.; her father paid for her trip.
- Neighbors warned Bhattrai’s father that people in the village were still looking for her, but there were no credible threats in Kathmandu and the Chhetri caste (her caste) is dominant in Kathmandu.
- The IJ found Bhattrai could reasonably relocate within Nepal (to Kathmandu) and thus the government rebutted the presumption of a well‑founded fear of future persecution; the BIA affirmed.
- Bhattrai challenged the IJ’s credibility findings about hiding and finances and argued the agency failed to separately analyze the CAT claim; the court denied review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bhattrai could reasonably relocate within Nepal | Relocation to Kathmandu would not protect her; risks and social constraints make relocation unreasonable | Parents and children live safely in Kathmandu; Chhetri caste dominant there; petitioner lived there unharmed; family has resources | Court upheld agency: relocation reasonable; presumption of future persecution rebutted |
| Credibility and family financial resources | IJ improperly discounted testimony that family was hiding and unable to support themselves in Kathmandu | Testimony was ambiguous; children attended school/work; father financed travel; no clear evidence of lack of resources | Court found substantial evidence supports IJ’s credibility and factual findings |
| Whether agency needed separate CAT analysis | Agency erred by not conducting a distinct CAT inquiry | Asylum rebuttal on relocation necessarily resolves withholding and CAT because those require a higher showing | Court held no separate CAT analysis required; denial of asylum disposes of withholding and CAT claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (review both IJ and BIA opinions for completeness)
- Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014) (factual findings reviewed under substantial evidence; legal questions de novo)
- Singh v. BIA, 435 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 2006) (asylum is not available to avoid internal relocation)
- Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106 (2d Cir. 2021) (factors to consider in determining reasonableness of internal relocation)
- Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (asylum denial can necessarily resolve withholding and CAT claims)