Case ID: f-appx_485/html/0871-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shushil NEUPANE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72613.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
    Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office Of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office Of The Chief Counsel Department Of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, Respondent. Laura M.L. Maroldy, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shushil Neupane, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Neupane failed to establish that he was or will be targeted by Maoists on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (even if the petitioner holds a political opinion, he still must establish targeting because of that political opinion); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). In the absence of a nexus to a protected ground, Neupane’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2005).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Neupane failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Nepal. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir.2011) (claim of possible torture speculative).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.