Anup Aryal v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANUP ARYAL,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71462
Agency No. A200-998-622
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2018**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Anup Aryal, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* 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
SEP 12 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-71462
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039—40 (9th
Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on vagueness and lack of detail regarding an alleged 2003 attack on Aryal
and based on omissions regarding the theft of Aryal’s brother’s store and Aryal’s
father’s problems with Maoists. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). In the absence of credible
testimony relating to key elements of his application, Aryal’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Aryal’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel
the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to
Nepal. See id. at 1156—57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --