PASANG LAMA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-70488 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PASANG TSERING LAMA, Petitioner, No. 13-70488 Agency No. A088-706-584 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2015** Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Pasang Tsering Lama, 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, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding based on Lama’s admitted misrepresentations on prior visa applications and based on the discrepancy between his declaration and his asylum office interview regarding the first ransom note. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of circumstances); Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2011) (lies to immigration authorities supported adverse credibility determination). The agency was not compelled to accept Lama’s explanations for the discrepancy regarding the ransom note. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Lama’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, Lama’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record that would compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be 2 13-70488 tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Nepal. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 13-70488
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
