Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01594/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01594-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Ashish Shrestha
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1594

ASHISH SHRESTHA,

 Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: February 18, 2016 Decided: March 15, 2016

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin H. Knutson, Sacramento, California, for Petitioner. 

Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant, Derek C. Julius, 

Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Nelle M. Seymour, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1594 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ashish Shrestha, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions 

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s 

denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal.* 

We have reviewed the administrative record, including the 

transcript of Shrestha’s merits hearing, the applications for 

relief, and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the 

record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the 

administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) 

(2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

decision to uphold the denial of the applications for relief. 

See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We 

accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated 

by the Board. See In re: Shrestha (B.I.A. May 7, 2015). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

 * Shreshtha failed to challenge the agency’s denial of his 

request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He 

has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See

Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 

2013).

Appeal: 15-1594 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/15/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 15-1594 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/15/2016 Pg: 3 of 3