FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANG NURI, No. 06-72094
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-415-112
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 14, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and HOGAN, Senior District
Judge.**
Ang Nuri, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of a decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing Nuri’s appeal of an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Thomas F. Hogan, Senior United States District Judge
for the District of District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) and deny the petition.
I. Asylum and Withholding of Deportation
Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ's credibility determination, we look to
the IJ's reasons for deeming the person not credible. Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d
1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000). We review adverse credibility findings “under the
same highly deferential substantial evidence standard applicable to the denial of
asylum” and uphold factual findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary." Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143
(9th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). An applicant who fails to satisfy the
lesser standard of proof required to establish eligibility for asylum necessarily fails
to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation. Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 965 (9th Cir. 1996).
Nuri claims persecution because of his affiliation with the Nepali Congress
Party, yet has demonstrated little knowledge of major events in the Party’s history.
Nuri’s account of events he allegedly undertook to promote the Party’s goals was
similarly unconvincing. Further, the IJ reasonably suspected that Nuri’s
citizenship certificate was falsified and that Nuri had been less than forthright in
explaining how he procured other documentation to support his claim. In
2
particular, we note that Nuri’s recent attempt to explain why a letter from the
Nepalese Congress Party was dated two months prior to the time when he allegedly
requested it by the fact that the Nepalese calendar is 57 years ahead of the Western
calendar flies in the face of logic. The IJ and BIA correctly found that Nuri has
failed to establish eligibility for asylum and thus also eligibility for withholding of
deportation.
II. CAT Relief
To be eligible for relief under CAT, “a petitioner must show that it is more
likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country
of removal.” Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001) (quotation
marks omitted). “[A] petitioner carries this burden whenever he or she presents
evidence establishing substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in
danger of being subjected to torture in the country of removal.” Id. at 1284
(alteration and quotation marks omitted). Mere fears of persecution do not suffice
under this standard. Id. at 1283. Nuri claims that Maoists once attacked him until
he lost consciousness and that Maoists again sought to confront him in a village to
which he had fled. However, Nuri’s recitation of the alleged attacks was
inconsistent just as his alleged knowledge that it was Maoists who sought the
confrontation is unconvincing. Nuri has not presented substantial evidence for
3
believing that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to
Nepal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4