Case Name: Angkami SHERPA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-03
Citations: 435 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 08-73956
Parties: Angkami SHERPA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 683–685

Head Matter:
Angkami SHERPA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73956.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 3, 2011.
Patrick Ontiveros Cantor, Esquire, But-tar & Cantor, LLP, Tukwila, WA, for Petitioner.
Oil Edward John Duffy, Sabina M. Lofty, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Seattle, WA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the Distinct Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Angkami Sherpa, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that the Maoists' unfulfilled threats against Sherpa and his family rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir.2000); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003). In addition, substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that Sherpa failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution in light of changed country conditions in Nepal. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2002); see also Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1093-95 (9th Cir.2010). Accordingly, Sherpa's asylum claim fails.
Because Sherpa failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Sherpa failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Nepal. See Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1095. Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.