Narrative Opinion Summary
Kumar Ghimire, a citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the BIA's order denying his asylum application. The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252 and conducts its review based on substantial evidence. The court denies Ghimire's petition, affirming that he did not prove past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, as he failed to show that the Maoists sought to recruit or extort him due to a protected ground. The court also dismisses Ghimire's argument regarding the BIA's failure to consider recent events in Nepal, noting that to establish a due process violation, an error must be shown. Additionally, Ghimire did not argue the agency's denial of withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture, leading to a waiver of these issues as they were not specifically raised in his brief. The petition for review is denied, and the disposition is not suitable for publication or precedent except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Due Process in Immigration Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An error must be shown to establish a due process violation in immigration proceedings.
Reasoning: The court also dismisses Ghimire's argument regarding the BIA's failure to consider recent events in Nepal, noting that to establish a due process violation, an error must be shown.
Publication and Precedential Value of Court Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Certain court dispositions are not suitable for publication or precedent except as permitted by specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The petition for review is denied, and the disposition is not suitable for publication or precedent except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Review of BIA's Asylum Decision under 8 U.S.C. 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum applications based on substantial evidence.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252 and conducts its review based on substantial evidence.
Standard for Proving Asylum Eligibilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner must demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground.
Reasoning: The court denies Ghimire's petition, affirming that he did not prove past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, as he failed to show that the Maoists sought to recruit or extort him due to a protected ground.
Waiver of Issues Not Raised in Briefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Issues not specifically argued in the brief are considered waived, such as the denial of withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Reasoning: Additionally, Ghimire did not argue the agency's denial of withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture, leading to a waiver of these issues as they were not specifically raised in his brief.