Mukunda Bastakoti v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUKUNDA BASTAKOTI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72983
Agency No. A099-446-764
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Mukunda Bastakoti, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
DEC 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review findings of fact for substantial evidence, see
Shrestha v.Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
credible, Bastakoti failed to establish that the threats, attempted extortion, and
assault he experienced rose to the level of past persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224
F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Our court generally treats unfulfilled threats,
without more, as within that category of conduct indicative of a danger of future
persecution, rather than as past persecution itself”). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s determination that Bastakoti did not establish a well-founded
fear of future persecution. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th
Cir. 2008). As a result, Bastakoti’s asylum claim fails.
Because Bastakoti failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief,
because Bastakoti failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured if he returns to Nepal. See Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1053-54 (9th Cir.
2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-72983 2

-- 2 of 2 --