NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KISHOR KHATIWADA,

Petitioner,

v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 71772 Agency No. A093

- 396

- 754

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 7, 2018

Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, ** District Judge.
Petitioner Kishor Khatiwada , a Nepali national and citizen, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and re lief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

NOV 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Reviewing the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, Gu v. Gonzales , 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006), w e grant the petition with regard to Khatiwada’s asylum and withholding claims

. 1 We deny the petition with regard to
his CAT claim. Khatiwada’s claims are based on his and his family’s affiliation with the Nepali Congress Party, a major political opponent of Nepal’s Maoists. Khatiwada testified that in 2003, a group of eight Maoists came to his family home and
demanded that his family quit the party and provide three sons to the Maoist armed
forces . The Maoists beat Khatiwada’s father and abducted his brother when his
father refused their demands. L ater , while Khatiwada was living elsew here in Nepal , a group of Maoists returned to the family home , reiterated their demands,
and abducted another brother. After Khatiwada fled Nepal for the United States, individuals claiming to be affiliated with the Maoists harassed his wife on multiple occasions, requesting a monetary “donation” and threatening to kill Khatiwada if
he returned to Nepal without notifying them and joining their cause. An immigration judge (“IJ”) found Khatiwada credible but determined that he had not
shown a legally sufficient nexus between any potential persecution and a protected ground

— in this case, his actual or imputed political beliefs

— that could en title him to asylum or withholding. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A), 12 31 (b)(3)(A)

. The

1 We refer to the BIA and immigration judge collectively as “the agency.”3

BIA affirmed

. 1. S imply resisting recruitment is not an inherently political act

. See I.N.S.
v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 482

- 83 (1992)

. But it does not follow t hat Khatiwada’s “desire to avoid conscription . . . somehow disqualified [him] from eligibility” for relief. Melkonian v. Ashcroft , 320 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2003).
Even if substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Khat iwada ’s
associ ation with the Nepali Congress Party was not “one central reason” for the
Maoists’ first visit to Khat i wada’s family home and attempt to recruit Khatiwada , the agency did not consider whether Khatiwada’s or his family’s political
affiliation was “a reason” for the Maoists’ targeting them

. 2 See Barajas

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 3 60 (9th Cir. 2017) ( “We hold that ‘ a reason ,’” the standard applicable to withholding, “ is a less demanding standard than ‘ one central

reason [ , ] ’ ” the standard that governs asy lum claims. ). Nor does it appear that the agency considered the Maoists’ motivation for their attacks on Khatiwada’s family following the family’s refusal to cooperate with them during the first incident

— the agency did not expressly discuss whether Khatiw ada’s political beliefs w ere one
central reason or a reason for the subsequent incidents . We remand so that the BIA

2 The G overnment concedes that the agency did not consider whether Khatiwada might have satisfied the “a reason” standard and that remand is appropriate if the Maoists might have been motivated by both political and non

political factors.4

may reconsider whether the nexus requirement for asylum or withholding was satisfied here, and, if so , to evaluate whether Khatiwada has sa tisfied the other requirements for those forms of relief.
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Khatiwada has not shown he would more likely than not be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official if he returned to Nepal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Khatiwada’s assertion that he would be tortured in the future because some Maoists now hold positions in the Nepali government relies on a series of inferences not compelled by the record. Khatiwad a produced nothing showing that the Maoists who targeted his family are the same as or linked to those who now hold power; there are multiple rival Maoist factions in Nepal. We therefore deny the petition with respect to the CAT claim. GRANTED in part, DE NIED in part, and REMANDED.