Tamang v. Holder

**Asy. 1 yr bar, IAC; withholding, CAT**

Tamang’s argument that he is exempt from the one year limitation period based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel fails because Tamang failed to satisfy the Lozada requirements and the ineffectiveness of Tamang’s former counsel’s assistance is not plain on its face– Tamang could not remember the name of his former counsel or the dates or circumstances of any purported contact with his former counsel.  It is not even clear Tamang spoke with an attorney.  Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Tamang the threats and violence his family experienced  did not constitute past persecution.  While Tamang’s brother was granted asylum (by the same IJ), he filed a timely asylum application and therefore the less stringent standard of “well-founded fear” applied.  In addition, Tamang’s brother,unlike Tamang, suffered direct persecution by Maoists.  Further, even if Tamang had suffered past persecution, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that changed conditions in Nepal mitigate against any fear of persecution if Tamang returned to Nepal.  No member of his family has had any contact with Maoists since the altercation in 2002; Tamang’s family returned to Nepal in 2006 and continues to live there without incident; and the political party with which Tamang and his family were associated now forms the government of Nepal.  Similarly, Tamang’s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable given that his family has had no problems with the Maoists since their return in 2006 and that the Nepalese king reinstated the 1999 parliament which was democratically elected and led by Tamang’s political party.  For the same reasons stated above under withholding of removal, the record does not compel the conclusion that Tamang merits CAT protection.

 http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/16/08-73550.pdf