NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANUP ARYAL, No. 14-71462 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-998-622 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 10, 2018** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Anup Aryal, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039—40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on vagueness and lack of detail regarding an alleged 2003 attack on Aryal and based on omissions regarding the theft of Aryal’s brother’s store and Aryal’s father’s problems with Maoists. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). In the absence of credible testimony relating to key elements of his application, Aryal’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, Aryal’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to Nepal. See id. at 1156—57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-71462 14-71462 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Anup Aryal v. Jefferson Sessions, III 12 September 2018 Agency Unpublished 7445f96961edbbd1fc90d2a0df9853a879e0ee85
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals