NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KHIM BAHADUR KHADKA, No. 17-72699
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-302-658
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 8, 2022*
San Francisco, California
Before: WARDLAW, IKUTA, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Khim Khadka, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding.
The agency provided specific and cogent reasons for its adverse credibility
determination. Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016); see
also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Khadka’s testimony at the hearing omitted
significant details set forth in his written declaration concerning his participation in
the Nepali Congress Party and the statements made by Maoists while attacking
him—both important aspects of his claims for relief. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649
F.3d 969, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th
Cir. 2020) (“When an applicant supplies only vague assertions and gives few
details at the merits hearing, the lack of detailed testimony can support an adverse
credibility finding.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). Khadka
also testified inconsistently about whether he received help from a friend in
drafting his declaration, further undermining his credibility. See Mukulumbutu v.
Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926–27 (9th Cir. 2020). Finally, Khadka’s testimony was
inconsistent as to the date of his first attack at the hands of the Maoists, a fact that
goes to the heart of his claim of persecution. See id.
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Khadka does
not qualify for asylum, because the remaining evidence does not compel a contrary
conclusion. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (asylum applicant bears burden of proof for
asylum eligibility); Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).
2
Because Khadka failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Silva v.
Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 719 (9th Cir. 2021); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).
3. We affirm the agency’s denial of relief under CAT. Khadka bore the
burden of demonstrating that he was more likely than not to be tortured if removed
to Nepal. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a). Khadka provided no
evidence that he had been tortured by or with the acquiescence of a Nepali
government official. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(i) (agency must consider
evidence of past torture). The BIA determined that the record’s country reports did
“not establish that [Khadka] will more likely than not be singled out for torture
with the acquiescence of the government upon his return,” and the record does not
compel a contrary conclusion.
PETITION DENIED.
3