FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BIR BAHADUR BASNET, No. 12-73815
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-910-284
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Bir Bahadur Basnet, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act, and we review de novo questions of
law. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination,
based on the BIA’s finding that Basnet’s misrepresentations regarding his wife’s
name on his visa application and to immigration officials significantly undermined
his credibility. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 2010) (“lies and
fraudulent documents when they are no longer necessary for the immediate escape
from persecution do support an adverse inference”); Zamonov v. Holder, 649 F.3d
969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency not compelled to accept petitioner’s explanations
for discrepancies). In the absence of credible testimony, Basnet’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because Basnet’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found
not credible, and Basnet does not point to any other evidence that compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Nepal,
2 12-73815
his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156–57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73815