Sharma v. Garland

Summary

The Tenth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for a Nepali petitioner who suffered two beatings by Maoist youth group members. The court upheld the BIA’s finding that the beatings, even cumulatively, did not rise to the level of past persecution and that the petitioner could reasonably relocate within Nepal to avoid future harm. The court dismissed the petitioner’s argument that threats combined with physical harm constituted persecution because he failed to exhaust that argument before the BIA. The court also rejected the petitioner’s CAT claim as insufficient under the substantial evidence standard.

Holdings

1. The argument was not exhausted before the BIA, so the court lacks jurisdiction to consider it.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that the beatings, even cumulatively, do not amount to persecution.
3. Sharma did not challenge the relocation finding, so the asylum claim fails.
4. Because the asylum claim fails, the withholding claim (higher burden) and CAT claim (higher burden) also fail.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the argument that threats from the YCL constituted past persecution was exhausted before the BIA.
2. Whether the BIA's determination that the two beatings did not rise to the level of past persecution is supported by substantial evidence.
3. Whether the BIA's finding that Sharma could reasonably relocate within Nepal to avoid future harm is supported.
4. Whether the withholding of removal and CAT claims fail if the asylum claim fails.

Disposition

other