Ko-Ko-Shaung

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 29 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AUNG KO-KO-SHAUNG, a.k.a. Ong Ko- No. 08-70624 Ko, Agency No. A099-631-423 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Argued and Submitted January 7, 2013 Pasadena, California

Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District Judge.**

Petitioner Ong Ko Ko is an ordained Buddhist monk and national of

Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. According to his written application and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. oral testimony, he has been repeatedly imprisoned and tortured by the government

for his membership in the National League for Democracy, a political…

concurring:

I concur in the remand for the sole purpose of allowing the agency to consider the effect, if any, of our intervening decision in Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir.2010).

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Ong Ko-Ko is an ordained Buddhist monk and national of Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. According to his written application and oral testimony, he has been repeatedly imprisoned and tortured by the government for his membership in the National League for Democracy, a political organization opposed to the regime in power. Ko-Ko stated that in 2006, fearing for his life, he fled to Thailand and then to Singapore. After several months, he was able to travel to Mexico and then across the border to the United States where he immediately sought asylum. At Ko-Ko’s removal hearing, despite noting that Ko-Ko’s testimony tracked his written statement and was quite detailed, the IJ found Ko-Ko not credible. IJ ordered Ko-Ko removed to Myanmar. The BIA affirmed in a brief opinion.

We review the BIA’s decision that Ko-Ko has failed to meet his burden of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT for substantial evidence. Kamalyan v. Holder, 620 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir.2010); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010); Bellout v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2004), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Khan v.…