Krishna Raj Pradhan v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRISHNA RAJ PRADHAN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73613
Agency No. A089-678-614
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Krishna Raj Pradhan, 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 withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 5 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-73613
the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency conclusion that Pradhan’s
experiences in Nepal, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Gu v. Gonzalez, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006); see
also Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Although
[petitioner’s] experiences are disturbing and regrettable, they do not evince actions
so severe as to compel a finding of past persecution.”) (emphasis added). Further,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Pradhan failed to establish
it is more likely than not he would be persecuted if returned to Nepal. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution “too speculative”); see also Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th
Cir. 2001) (“applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even
undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country
without incident”). Thus, Pradhan’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --