NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUBASH KHADKA, No. 18-70744 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-927-534 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 11, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and SIMON,*** District Judge. Petitioner Subash Khadka seeks review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. (“IJ”) denying Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Nepal. He entered the United States on March 31, 2016. An asylum officer conducted a credible fear interview and referred Petitioner’s case to the immigration court. After a hearing before the IJ, at which Petitioner was represented by counsel, the IJ issued an oral decision finding Petitioner removable and denying Petitioner’s applications. The BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. 2. To qualify for asylum, an applicant must show past “persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Al-Harbi v. I.N.S., 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). A well- founded fear of persecution must be both “subjectively genuine” and “objectively reasonable.” Id. To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show that “it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution” because of a protected ground. Id. (quoting I.N.S. v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429–30 (1984)). To qualify for relief under the CAT, an applicant must show that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). 2 3. An adverse credibility determination alone, when properly based on substantial evidence, is enough to support the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 n.6 (9th Cir. 2010). In evaluating credibility, the IJ must consider “the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” including “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals