Pradeep Bhusal v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit***
Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PRADEEP BHUSAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73467
Agency No. A098-532-921
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 8, 2010**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, LUCERO, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.***
Pradeep Bhusal, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of a
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the oral decision of
FILED
APR 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
an immigration judge (IJ) denying Bhusal’s application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Even if we were to accept Bhusal’s arguments that the Maoists targeted him
(or his family) on account of a protected ground, Bhusal failed to establish that
what happened to him amounted to past persecution. Because Bhusal has not
established past persecution, he is not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded
fear of future persecution, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2010), and Bhusal has not
presented any evidence that independently establishes such a well-founded fear.
Therefore, his asylum claim fails.
Because Bhusal did not satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, he
necessarily did not satisfy the more stringent standard of proof for withholding of
removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Bhusal’s
CAT claim was properly rejected because the record evidence does not compel the
conclusion that he would most likely be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a
government official or other person acting in an official capacity. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(1) (2010); Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir.
2006). Thus, the BIA’s determination that Bhusal was not entitled to any relief is
therefore supported by substantial evidence.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --