EK NARAYAN SHARMA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-70802 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED APR 23 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EK NARAYAN SHARMA, Petitioner, No. 09-70802 Agency No. A097-864-658 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Ek Narayan Sharma, native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). * 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). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that the Maoists were motivated, even in part, by Sharma s actual or imputed political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992). Further, here, where Sharma s wife and five daughters have remained in Nepal unharmed, substantial evidence supports the IJ s finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that petition failed to make a compelling showing of the objective component). Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ s denial of CAT relief because Sharma did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented below). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 09-70802

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.