Shushil Neupane 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SHUSHIL NEUPANE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72613
Agency No. A099-359-249
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Shushil Neupane, 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
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-72613
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Neupane failed to
establish that he was or will be targeted by Maoists on account of a protected
ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992) (even if the
petitioner holds a political opinion, he still must establish targeting because of that
political opinion); 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”). In the absence of a nexus to a protected
ground, Neupane’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v.
Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Neupane failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Nepal. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
(claim of possible torture speculative).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --