Court Opinion

ID: 9393931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 17:01:40.849303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:56.177460
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 11 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEVENDRA GURUNG,                                No. 22-478

              Petitioner,                       Agency No.       A209-052-610

  v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                             Submitted May 08, 2023 **
                             San Francisco, California

Before: CHRISTEN and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District
Judge.

       Devendra Gurung, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of a

decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of

       *
            This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
       ***
            The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

      Where, as here, “the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the

[IJ’s] reasoning, we review both decisions.” Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32

F.4th 696, 702 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857,

861 (9th Cir. 2012)). “We review legal questions de novo and factual

findings . . . for substantial evidence.” Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1123

(9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). Under that standard, “administrative findings of

fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to

conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

      1.     Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Gurung failed to establish that the Nepalese government was or would be

unwilling or unable to protect him from persecution by Maoist antagonists.

According to Gurung’s own testimony, the local police protected him from

harm and escorted him to safety the one and only time he reported that he was

in danger. Despite Gurung’s arguments to the contrary, nothing in the

documentary evidence compels the conclusion that the Nepalese government is

unwilling or unable to protect him from persecution in the future. See 8 U.S.C. §

1252(b)(4)(B). Contrary to Gurung’s assertions, there is no basis to conclude

that the BIA did not sufficiently consider his arguments on appeal. Accordingly,

the petition is denied with respect to Gurung’s request for asylum and

withholding of removal.

                                        2
      2.     For the same reasons, substantial evidence also supports the

agency’s determination that Gurung failed to establish that he would “more

likely than not” be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official

if he were returned to Nepal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see also Kamalthas v.

INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]orture is defined as any act by

which severe pain or suffering . . . is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with

the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an

official capacity.” (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (2000))). Accordingly, the

petition is denied with respect to Gurung’s request for CAT protection.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                          3