NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMRIT BASTOLA, No. 18-70094 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-876-538 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 11, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: MILLER and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges, and RAYES,*** District Judge. Amrit Bastola, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and * 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 Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition for review. 1. We review the agency’s findings related to past persecution for substantial evidence. Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004). The agency’s “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992). Even when “a reasonable factfinder could have found [an] incident sufficient to establish past persecution,” that is not enough for us to grant relief because “[w]e are not permitted to substitute our view of the matter for that of the Board.” Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harm Bastola suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. Starting in late 2013, Bastola was confronted by persons affiliated with the Maoist party in Nepal. Twice, he was chased by Maoists but escaped. He was also slapped at a local tea shop. In early 2015, a group of Maoists beat Bastola at his home, resulting in injuries for which he sought medical treatment. The Board determined that the “physical assaults were short in duration and did not cause [Bastola] severe or prolonged injuries.” On this record, we are not compelled to disagree. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). 2 Bastola was also subject to threats against his life by Maoists, along with threats of serious harm to his family. Our cases have recognized that “death threats alone” may constitute persecution, see Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir. 2000), but “we typically rely on all of the surrounding events, including the death threat, in deciding whether persecution exists.” Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, the Board concluded that the physical attacks Bastola suffered, even viewed in conjunction with the threats, did not rise to the level ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals