NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SONAM PEMBA LAMA, No. 14-70119
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-671-779
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Sonam Pemba 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have 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), and we review de
novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies concerning Lama’s passport and visa, and concerning the
follow-up medical attention Lama received after an alleged beating. See id. at
1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of
circumstances”). The agency reasonably rejected Lama’s explanations. See
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding agency finding
that explanations for inconsistencies were insufficient). We reject Lama’s
contentions that the agency’s findings rested on speculation, conjecture, and
mischaracterizations of the record. 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).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Lama’s CAT claim
2 14-70119
because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Lama does not
point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more
likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government if returned to Nepal. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. We reject
Lama’s contentions that the agency failed to consider record evidence and its
analysis was deficient. Thus, Lama’s CAT claim fails.
Finally, we reject Lama’s contention that the IJ demonstrated bias during
proceedings, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
to establish a due process claim), and his contention that the BIA ignored this
argument on appeal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-70119