NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BIDYA SAGAR PRADHAN, No. 08-75229
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-763-872
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 16, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Bidya Sagar Pradhan petitions for review from the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We grant the petition in part, deny
it in part, and remand for further proceedings. Because the parties are familiar with
the history of this case, we need not recount it here.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Substantial evidence does not support the determination of the immigration
judge (IJ) that Pradhan’s political opinion was not a “central reason” for his
persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Though the IJ stated that the
Maoists never referenced Pradhan’s political affiliation, Pradhan testified that a
Maoist leader told him the Maoists targeted Pradhan “since you are a businessman
and you are that Nepali Congress supporter. . . .” In light of this direct evidence of
his persecutors’ motives, which the IJ did not address, and other evidence in the
record, any reasonable factfinder would conclude that Pradhan’s political opinion
was one central reason for his persecution. Pradhan’s testimony demonstrates the
Maoists would not have targeted Pradhan but for his political opinion, which
satisfies the “one central reason” standard. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d
734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] motive is a ‘central reason’ if the persecutor would
not have harmed the applicant if such motive did not exist.”). Therefore, we grant
the petition and remand for the Board and IJ to consider the other requirements for
asylum and withholding.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioner is not
entitled to CAT relief, even though the IJ erred in her nexus analysis as to that
claim.
PETITION GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART; REMANDED.
2
Costs awarded to the petitioners.
3