MUKUNDA BASTAKOTI V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72983 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUKUNDA BASTAKOTI, Petitioner, No. 11-72983 Agency No. A099-446-764 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2013 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Mukunda Bastakoti, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review findings of fact for substantial evidence, see Shrestha v.Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s determination that, even if credible, Bastakoti failed to establish that the threats, attempted extortion, and assault he experienced rose to the level of past persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) ( Our court generally treats unfulfilled threats, without more, as within that category of conduct indicative of a danger of future persecution, rather than as past persecution itself ). Substantial evidence also supports the agency s determination that Bastakoti did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2008). As a result, Bastakoti s asylum claim fails. Because Bastakoti failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency s denial of CAT relief, because Bastakoti failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Nepal. See Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2011). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-72983

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.