Madhukar Lama 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).
RA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MADHUKAR LAMA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-71581
Agency No. A097-583-052
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Madhukar Lama, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

RA/Research 06-71581 2
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review substantial evidence findings
of fact, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review de
novo questions of law, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,1244 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny
the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed circumstances
excused Lama’s untimely filed his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4);
Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Lama’s
asylum application fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the harm Lama
suffered does not rise to the level of persecution, see Gu, 454 F.3d at 1020-21, and
the agency’s conclusion that Lama failed to establish a clear probability of
persecution in Nepal. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.
2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Lama is
ineligible for CAT relief because he failed to show it is more likely than not he
would be tortured if returned to Nepal. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100,
1113 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

RA/Research 06-71581 3
We reject Lama’s contention that he was deprived of a full and fair hearing
due to the IJ’s failure to consider evidence of changed country conditions in
assessing his asylum claim. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error to prevail
on a due process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --