Ashish Shrestha v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A201-250-769 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999774448].. [15-1594]

Appeal: 15-1594

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1594

ASHISH SHRESTHA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

February 18, 2016

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judges.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 15, 2016

HAMILTON,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin H. Knutson, Sacramento, California, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant, Derek C. Julius,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Nelle M. Seymour,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1594

Doc: 27

Filed: 03/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ashish Shrestha, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions
for

review

(Board)

of

an

order

dismissing

his

of

the

appeal

Board
from

of

Appeals

Immigration

the

Immigration

Judge’s

denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. *
We

have

reviewed

the

administrative

record,

including

the

transcript of Shrestha’s merits hearing, the applications for
relief,

and

all

supporting

evidence.

We

conclude

that

the

record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the
administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2012),

and

that

substantial

evidence

supports

the

Board’s

decision to uphold the denial of the applications for relief.
See

INS

v.

Elias-Zacarias,

502

U.S.

478,

481

(1992).

We

accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated
by the Board.

See In re: Shrestha (B.I.A. May 7, 2015).

dispense

oral

with

argument

because

*

the

facts

and

We

legal

Shreshtha failed to challenge the agency’s denial of his
request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He
has therefore waived appellate review of this claim.
See
Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir.
2013).

2

Appeal: 15-1594

Doc: 27

contentions

are

Filed: 03/15/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3