FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUBAS SHARMA, No. 07-71778
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-317-361
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 17, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Subas Sharma petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We
deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Petitioner does not appear to challenge the BIA’s finding that he failed to
demonstrate materially changed circumstances that would excuse his late asylum
filing, so that argument is waived. Regardless, to be excused from the one-year
filing deadline for asylum applications based on changed circumstances, petitioner
would have needed to explain how the alleged change in circumstances materially
affected his eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). The record does not
compel a conclusion that changed circumstances excused his application’s
untimeliness. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 648 (9th Cir. 2007). The
present record contains no evidence of changed circumstances beyond petitioner’s
bare assertions. Indeed, the reasons petitioner cites for pursuing his current
applications are the same as those he gave for leaving Nepal in 1996. As such,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision upholding the dismissal of
Sharma’s asylum petition as untimely.
Numerous inconsistencies between petitioner’s applications, his testimony,
and his brother’s testimony constituted substantial evidence to support the
agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 723 (9th
Cir. 1997). Based on that finding, it was not error to conclude that petitioner had
failed to demonstrate that he would more likely than not be harmed or tortured
upon returning to Nepal, as required for the applications for withholding of
2
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Zheng v.
Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.
3