FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PASANG TSERING LAMA, No. 13-70488
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-706-584
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Pasang Tsering Lama, 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. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding based on
Lama’s admitted misrepresentations on prior visa applications and based on the
discrepancy between his declaration and his asylum office interview regarding the
first ransom note. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under
totality of circumstances); Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2011)
(lies to immigration authorities supported adverse credibility determination). The
agency was not compelled to accept Lama’s explanations for the discrepancy
regarding the ransom note. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.
2011). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Lama’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
Finally, Lama’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements
the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the
record that would compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be
2 13-70488
tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Nepal. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-70488