Dhakal v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Dhakal v. Holder

320 F. App'x 561

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 2009

DocketNo. 06-75663

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 320 F. App'x 561 (Dhakal v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dhakal v. Holder, 320 F. App'x 561 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Shambhu Prasad Dhakal, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Dhakal failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground because the record does not compel the conclusion that the Maoists who sought to extort money from him were motivated by more than economic interest. See id. at 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812; cf. Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 735-36 (9th Cir.1999) (explaining that ‘extortion plus’ is necessary to satisfy nexus requirement). Accordingly, he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. See id. at 481,112 S.Ct. 812.

Because Dhakal failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent requirements for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Shambhu Prasad Dhakal, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Dhakal failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground because the record does not compel the conclusion that the Maoists who sought to extort money from him were motivated by more than economic interest. See id. at 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812; cf. Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 735-36 (9th Cir.1999) (explaining that ‘extortion plus’ is necessary to satisfy nexus requirement). Accordingly, he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. See id. at 481,112 S.Ct. 812.

Because Dhakal failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent requirements for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F. App'x 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dhakal-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack