NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BINDU NEUPANE, No. 10-72263
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-527-534
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SELNA, District
Judge.***
Bindu Neupane, a citizen and native of Nepal, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) final order dismissing her appeal from an
*
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).
***
The Honorable James V. Selna, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny Neupane’s petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Neupane did
not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481–84 (1992). Despite any anti-Maoist political opinion
Neupane might hold, the record does not compel the conclusion that she was or
will be persecuted by the Maoists on account of her political opinion or any other
protected ground. Accordingly, Neupane has failed to establish eligibility for
asylum. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 482–83. Having failed to establish
eligibility for asylum, Neupane necessarily fails to meet the more stringent
requirements for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Neupane’s CAT claim is similarly unavailing because nothing in the record
compels the conclusion that she will more likely than not be tortured at the
instigation of, or with the acquiescence of, the Nepalese government if returned to
Nepal. See Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
PETITION DENIED.