Dahal v. Barr, 931 F.3d 15

Background

Madhav Prasad Dahal, a Nepali citizen and member of the Nepali Congress Party, testified (credibly) that Maoists persecuted him from 1997 onward—threats, assaults, hostage-taking, extortion—and continued threats after he left Nepal in 2010.
Dahal overstayed a U.S. visa in 2010, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in 2011; USCIS referred the case to immigration court.
An Immigration Judge credited Dahal's testimony as showing past political persecution, but denied asylum and withholding, concluding the Government rebutted the statutory presumption of future persecution by showing a fundamental change in Nepal’s conditions (relying heavily on State Department Country Reports).
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, adding that Dahal’s family remained in Nepal without apparent persecution and his long absence reduced the likelihood of future persecution; it also denied CAT relief for lack of proof of torture risk.
The First Circuit reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard, credited factual findings but evaluated whether the Government met its burden to rebut the presumption arising from past persecution.

Issues

Issue	Dahal's Argument	Barr's Argument	Held
Whether the Government rebutted the presumption of a well‑founded fear of future persecution (asylum)	Dahal: Country conditions and his continuing, post‑2006 threats show no fundamental change; the Country Reports do not negate his specific fear	Barr: Country Reports (2006 peace agreement, 2013 elections, 2015 constitution) and lack of recent harm rebut the presumption	Held: Rebuttal not shown; Country Reports and record do not negate Dahal's particular risk; asylum eligibility vacated and remanded for discretionary decision
Whether Dahal is entitled to withholding of removal (clear probability standard)	Dahal: Credited past persecution entitles him to presumption of future threat; country‑condition evidence does not overcome that presumption	Barr: Because Dahal failed to show asylum eligibility, he also fails withholding; country‑condition evidence undermines future risk	Held: Agency relied on flawed premise (asylum ineligibility); denial vacated and case remanded for agency to reassess withholding claim
Whether Dahal established eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)	Dahal: Government ignores Maoist torture victims; argues risk of torture exists	Barr: Record lacks objective evidence showing torture is more likely than not	Held: Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief; petitioner offered no objective proof of likelihood of torture
Applicable standard of review for factual findings	Dahal: Agency findings must be supported by substantial evidence and must address claimant's specific circumstances	Barr: Agency's reliance on Country Reports and record facts suffices under substantial‑evidence review	Held: Substantial‑evidence review applies; but here the record compels rejection of the agency's conclusion that changed country conditions rebutted the presumption arising from past persecution

Key Cases Cited

Palma-Mazariegos v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2005) (Country Reports must negate the asylum seeker's particular fear to rebut presumption of future persecution)
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (standard for substantial evidence review explained)
Fergiste v. INS, 138 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1998) (distinguishes asylum eligibility as discretionary from mandatory withholding relief)
INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984) ("clear probability" standard for withholding of removal)
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) (withholding is mandatory unless an exception applies)
Martinez v. Holder, 734 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2013) (CAT standard: more likely than not showing of torture)
Elien v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2004) (CAT burden of proof discussed)
Balachandran v. Holder, 566 F.3d 269 (1st Cir. 2009) (substantial evidence standard for reviewing BIA/ IJ factual findings)