Samir Lamichhane v. Jefferson Sessions, 694 F. App'x 562

Samir Lamichhane sought asylum and withholding of removal; BIA found his asylum application untimely and denied withholding on the merits.
The BIA concluded three alleged persecution incidents were not motivated by Lamichhane’s political opinion and therefore rejected his claims.
The BIA applied the asylum "one central reason" standard in discussing political motivation and, without separate analysis, used that outcome to deny withholding of removal.
Lamichhane petitioned for judicial review challenging the timeliness finding and the merits denial of withholding.
The court lacked jurisdiction to review the fact-disputed timeliness determination but reviewed legal issues and the withholding determination under the proper standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over asylum timeliness	Lamichhane contends his application was filed within 1 year of arrival	Government contends timeliness is a factual determination making it unreviewable	Court lacks jurisdiction because timeliness involves disputed facts and §1158(a)(3) bars review
Standard for withholding vs asylum	Lamichhane argues withholding requires evaluation under its own, distinct standard (not "one central reason")	BIA treated withholding as failing because asylum failed under "one central reason" test	Barajas-Romero requires different withholding standard; BIA erred to apply the asylum test to withholding claims generally
Merits: whether persecution was motivated by political opinion	Lamichhane argues incidents were caused by his political opinion	BIA found incidents unrelated to political opinion and thus insufficient for protection	Substantial evidence supports BIA conclusion that the three incidents were unrelated to his political opinion; withholding denial affirmed
Remedy: remand required for correct standard	Lamichhane seeks remand for BIA reconsideration under proper withholding standard	Government argues no remand needed because BIA found incidents unrelated to political opinion even under any standard	No remand necessary because BIA did not find political opinion was a partial reason; substantial evidence supports its finding

Khunaverdiants v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 760 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes reviewable legal questions from unreviewable factual timeliness determinations)
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) ("one central reason" standard applies to asylum but not to withholding of removal)