N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT OM K AR SHR ESTHA, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-70096 Age n c y No. A206-361-030
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 15, 2019 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c K EOW

N a nd W . FLETC HER , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd EZR A , *** Distric t Judge
. Om

ka r Shre stha , a

native and c itiz e n of Ne pa l, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of his a pplic ation for a sy lum , 

# F IL ED F EB 22 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble David A. Ezra , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii, sitting by de signa

tion.withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). Shre stha c la im e d he wa s e ligiblefor re lie f be c a use he ha d be e n phy sic a lly atta c ke d by M a o ists dueto his m e m

be rship in the Ne p a li C ongre ss Pa rty .

“ W he re , a s he re , the B IA a gre e s with a nd inc orporate s spe c ific findings of the [Im m igration Judge(“ IJ” )] while a dding its own re a soning, were v ie w both de c isions.” Bhattarai v. Ly nc h , 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th C i r. 2016). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd we a ffirm
. Asy lum and W ithholding of R

e m ova l An a pplic a nt for a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l be ars the burde n of
e sta blishing e ligibility . 8 U.S.C . §§ 1158(b)(1)(B )(I), 1229a (c )(4)(A).

“ The te stim o ny

of the a pplic ant m ay

be suffic ie nt to sustain the a pplic ant’ s burde n without c orroboration, but only if the a pplic ant sa

tisfie s the trie r of fa c t tha t the a pplic an t’ s te stim ony

is c re dible . . . .” 8 U.S.C
. § 1158(b)(1)(B )(ii). The R EAL ID Ac t, whic h gove rns c la im s file d a fte r M a y 11, 2005, provide s the sta nda rd for de te rm ining a

n a pplic ant’ s c re dibility , inc luding a list of re le va

nt fa c t ors. 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii); Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th C ir. 2010). “ For e a c h fa c t or form ing the ba sis of a n a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm i nation, the IJ should re fe r to spe c ific insta n c e s in the re c ord tha

t support a
c onc lusion tha

t the fa c tor unde rm ine s c re dibility .” Shre s tha , 590 F.3d a

t 1044.
2The B IA he re uphe ld the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. An a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion is re vie we d for substa ntia l e vide nc e . S

e e Gui v . IN

S , 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th C ir. 2002). “Unde r the substa ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd, the
c ourt upholds the

B IA’ s de te rm inat ion unle ss the e v ide nc e in the re c ord c om pe ls a
c ontra ry c onc lusion.” C

ole v . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Arte aga v . Muk

ase y , 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th C ir. 2007)). The e vide nc e in the re c ord doe s not c o m pe l a positivec re d ibility de te rm i nation. The IJ pe rm issibly re lie d on inc onsiste nc ie s be twe e n Shre stha ’ s c re d ible fe ar inte rvie w—

whic h wa s c onduc te d unde r oath through a n inte rpre te r
and the a dm ission of whic h Shre stha did not c ha lle nge
— a

n d his he aring te stim ony , a s we ll a s the om ission of the a lle ge d atta c k on Shre stha from his fa the r’ s supporting le tt e r. As re quire d, the IJ ga v e Shre stha

an opportunity

to e xpla in the inc o nsiste nc i e s. Se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1044 (holding tha

t a n im m igrat ion judge “ should c onside r . . . the pe titione r’ s e xpla nation for a

pe rc e ive d inc o nsiste nc y ” ). Shre stha ’ s e xpla nations, while

pla usible , we re not so obviously
c orre c t tha

t the IJ wa s c om

pe l le d to c re dit the m . Se e Rizk v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ If the IJ re a sona b l y re je c t s the a lie n’ s e xpla

n a tion, . . . the IJ m a y prope rly re ly on the inc onsiste nc y a s support for a

n a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm i nation.” (inte rna l c ita tions omitte d)).

3The IJ a lso ba se d his a d v e rse c re d ibility

de te rm ination on Shre stha ’ s de m e anor, na

m e ly on a “ patte rn of e va sive ne ss.” Though de m e anor findings a re
a c c orde d “ s pe c ia l de fe re nc e ” by re vie wing c ourts, a s pe c ts of de m e anor

“ c o nc e rning the nature of pe titione r’ s te stim ony ” tha t a re “ a sc e rta ina

b le from the
re c o rd” m ay

be re vie w e d by

c ourts for substa

ntia l e v ide nc e . Arulampalam v
. Ashc roft , 353 F.3d 679, 685–86 (9th C ir. 2003). “ Abse nt spe c i fic e xam ple s of
e va sive ne ss or inc onsiste nc y , a ge ne ra l de c la

ration of e va sive ne ss or inc onsiste nc y is insuffic ie nt to support adve rse c re d ibility .” Le i Li v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1154, 1158–59 (9th C ir. 2011). He re , though, the IJ re fe rre d to a

spe c ific e xam

ple of
e va sive ne ss, a

nd we are not c om

pe lle d by the re c ord to c onc lude tha t the IJ’ s e va sive ne ss finding wa s e rrone ous. Unde r the “ tota lity of the c irc um sta n c e s ,” the re is substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supporting the a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination uphe ld by the B IA. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii); Shre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1044. W e ne xt c onside r whe the r, a bse nt c re dible te stim ony , Shre stha c an e sta blish
e ligibility for a sy lum

or withholding of re

m ova l ba se d on doc um e n ta ry e vide nc e
a lone . “ An a

pplic a nt a lle ging pa st pe rse c ution ha s the burde n of e sta blishing tha

t (1) his tre a t

m e nt rise s to the le ve l of pe rse c ution; (2) the pe rse c ution wa s on
a c c ount of one or m ore prote c te d grounds; a nd (3) the pe rse c ution wa s c om m itte d

4by

the gove rnm e nt, or by forc e s tha t the gove rnm e nt wa s una ble or unwilling to
c ontrol.” Baghdasaryan v . Holde r , 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th C ir. 2010). He re , e ve n a ssum ing Shre stha ’ s doc um e nta ry e vide nc e shows tre a tm e nt rising to the

le ve l of pe rse c ution on the ba sis of his politic a l opinion, the re is substa ntia l e vide nc e supporting the IJ’ s finding tha

t Shre stha fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t his pe rse c utors, M a o ists, a re “ forc e s tha

t the gove rnm e nt wa s una ble or unwilling to c o ntrol.” Se e id. The c ountry c onditions doc

um e nts show a c tive polic e re sponse s to M a oist violenc e , inc luding num e rous a rre s ts following viole

nt de m onstra

tions. Though Shre stha

a sse rts tha

t polic e did not a c t

in his c a s e be c a

use of “ p re ssure ,” the IJ found the le tte r from loc a l polic e indic ate d a

se rious, ongoing inve stiga tion a nd we are not c om

pe lle d to c onc lude the c ontra ry . Substa

ntia l
e vide nc e supports the

B IA’ s de nia l of a sy lum

and withholding of re

m o va l. C onve ntion Aga inst Torture An a pplic a nt is e ligiblefor C AT re lie f if he c a n show it is “

m o re like ly

tha n not” he would be torture d in the c ountry of re m ova l. 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). Torture is de fine d a s “ s e ve re pa in or suffe ring, . . . inflic te d by or at the instiga

tion of or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of a public offic ia l or othe r pe rson a c ting in
an offic ia l c a

p a c ity
. ” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18(a)(1). Shre stha ha s not shown it is “

m ore

5like ly

tha n not” he would be torture d with the“ c onse nt or a c quie s c e nc e ” of Ne pa li public offic ia ls. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

6