Umesh Thapa v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UMESH THAPA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72524
Agency No. A089-294-622
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2015 **
San Francisco California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District
Judge.***
FILED
JAN 22 2015
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).
*** The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Umesh Thapa petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. We deny his petition.
Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that Thapa was
ineligible for asylum because he had firmly resettled in Ecuador prior to arriving in
the United States. In Ecuador, Thapa received a category VI “indefinite” visa,
worked for almost three years, and rented a room.
Substantial evidence also supported the BIA’s conclusion that Thapa was
ineligible for withholding of removal. Thapa’s refusal to participate in the
Maoists’ strike in Nepal did not compel a conclusion that there was a nexus
between the Maoists’ actions and Thapa’s actual or imputed political opinions. See
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992). Further, the reports of unrest
and violence in Nepal did not compel a finding that Thapa more likely than not
will be persecuted on account of his political opinion if forced to return to Nepal.
Finally, substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Thapa is
ineligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The record does
not suggest Thapa was tortured in Nepal. Just as the reports of unrest failed to
establish Thapa was more likely than not to be persecuted if he returned to Nepal,
2

-- 2 of 3 --

they did not show he is more likely than not to be tortured. See Shrestha v. Holder,
590 F.3d 1034, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2010).
Petition DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --