KRISHNA PRADHAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73613 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 5 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISHNA RAJ PRADHAN, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73613 Agency No. A089-678-614 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Krishna Raj Pradhan, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency conclusion that Pradhan’s experiences in Nepal, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzalez, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Although [petitioner’s] experiences are disturbing and regrettable, they do not evince actions so severe as to compel a finding of past persecution.”) (emphasis added). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Pradhan failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be persecuted if returned to Nepal. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”); see also Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident”). Thus, Pradhan’s withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73613
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.
