Case Name: Prakash Narshing RANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-24
Citations: 406 F. App'x 110
Docket Number: No. 06-73897
Parties: Prakash Narshing RANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RYMER, Circuit Judge, and KENNELLY, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 406
Pages: 110–111

Head Matter:
Prakash Narshing RANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73897.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 2010.
Filed Nov. 24, 2010.
Pardeep S. Grewal, Esquire, Law Offices of Pardeep S. Grewal, Castro Valley, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew C. Maelachlan, Stuart Nickum, Trial, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RYMER, Circuit Judge, and KENNELLY, District Judge.
The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The agency denied Rana's asylum claim as time-barred. Rana has forfeited any challenge to this ruling by failing to address it in his brief. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1228, 1232 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2004).
The agency denied Rana's withholding of removal and CAT claims based on the IJ's adverse credibility determination. Substantial evidence supports this determination. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir.2010). Rana admitted that he possessed a valid Nepalese passport issued by the Nepalese embassy in Washington, D.C., describing him as a citizen of Nepal and listing his birthplace as Kathmandu, Nepal. The IJ reasonably found that Rana's possession of the passport undermined his claim of Bhutanese birth and citizenship. Because this finding goes to the heart of Rana's claims, we need not address the other grounds upon which the IJ relied. See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.2003).
The petition for review is DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.