Karki v. Holder
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8702
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Karki, a Nepalese citizen, seeks asylum, restriction on removal, and CAT relief after removal proceedings following a 2007 visit to the U.S.
- IJ denied asylum and other relief, finding lack of nexus, no past persecution, and no well-founded fear; credibility concerns were noted.
- Petitioner testified Maoists persecuted him for political opinions and Nepali Congress support; incidents included threats, assaults, and property seizure.
- Record showed bombing and killings of colleagues tied to his UNDP work; Petitioner testified the Maoists targeted him as a pro-democracy advocate.
- BIA affirmed the IJ’s credibility findings but determined no asylum or CAT relief, citing lack of persecution nexus and lack of government complicity.
- Court grants petition for review, remands for further consideration on past persecution severity and well-founded fear, including CAT implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether persecution was motivated by political opinion | Karki: Maoists targeted him for pro-democracy beliefs and Nepali Congress support. | Government: harassment and extortion were not shown to be motivated by political opinion. | Remanded; agency must credit political-motive evidence and reassess nexus. |
| Whether past persecution occurred | Karki contends physical assaults, threats, and property seizure amount to past persecution. | IJ/BIA characterized incidents as non-persecutory or not sufficiently severe. | Remanded; record supports past persecution when considering cumulative incidents. |
| Whether petitioner has a well-founded fear of future persecution | Evidence of ongoing Maoist threats and political targeting supports well-founded fear. | Father’s willingness to return undermines reasonableness of fear and negates likelihood of future harm. | Remanded; agency must assess fear with proper weight to evidence of political targeting and country conditions. |
| Whether CAT relief was properly denied | Nepal’s state of affairs and Maoist torture risk indicate likelihood of torture if returned. | Insufficient evidence of government acquiescence or likelihood of torture specific to Petitioner. | Remanded; agency may evaluate whether willful blindness or acquiescence supports CAT relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. (1992)) (recruitment alone does not prove political persecution; may rely on broader context)
- Ustyan v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes mere refusal to join from political persecution depending on context)
- Espinosa-Cortez v. Att’y Gen., 607 F.3d 101 (3d Cir. 2010) (crediting political motivation when evidence shows anti-government conduct tied to beliefs)
- Krastev v. INS, 292 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2002) (well-founded fear framework for asylum after past persecution)
- Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (aggressions against petitioner can constitute past persecution even without permanent injury)
- Ritonga v. Holder, 633 F.3d 971 (10th Cir. 2011) (consider cumulative mistreatment when assessing persecution)
- Dallakoti v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2010) (definition and thresholds for refugee status under REAL ID Act)