Asha Tamang 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASHA TAMANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72171
Agency No. A094-995-323
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Asha Tamang, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
APR 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-72171
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
Tamang testified Maoists threatened, kidnaped, and beat her after she
refused to give them money or join them. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s conclusion that Tamang failed to establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, n.1 (1992); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734,
740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent
‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Tamang’s claim for
humanitarian asylum necessarily fails because she did not establish past
persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Accordingly, in the absence of a
nexus to a protected ground, Tamang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Tamang has not
established that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official upon return to
Nepal. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly,
Tamang’s CAT claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-72171
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --