Marichman Budha Magar v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A201-109-064. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency.  [15-1548]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MARICHMAN BUDHA MAGAR,
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
January 14, 2016
March 3, 2016
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, Tracie N. Jones,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Against Torture (CAT).
We deny the petition for review.
To be eligible for asylum, Magar must show that he has a
ground if he returns to Nepal.
Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921,
Magar faces a higher burden of proof
to establish entitlement to withholding of removal because he
must show a clear probability of persecution on account of a
Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272 (4th
If Magar fails to prove his eligibility for asylum,
he is also ineligible for withholding of removal.
circumstances, and all relevant factors,” may make an adverse
written and oral statements, the internal consistency of each
such statement, the consistency of such statements with other
Pg: 3 of 4
evidence of record, or any other relevant factor.
credibility determination may rest on any relevant factor, even
one that does not “go[ ] to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
“The existence of only a few
sufficient” to support an adverse credibility finding.
662 F.3d at 273-74.
The scope of our review is narrow.
Hui Pan, 737 F.3d at
We will affirm so long as the decision “is not manifestly
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012).
We must affirm a
determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of
removal that is supported by substantial evidence in the record
considered as a whole.
INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
We will reverse the Board only if “the evidence . . .
presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”
Id. at 483-84.
adverse credibility finding, particularly in light of the fact
that Magar gave different accounts of what caused him to leave
Nepal, which is not a minor detail.
We also conclude that
Pg: 4 of 4
substantial evidence supports the finding that Magar did not
through independent evidence.
Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199,
challenges the denial of protection under the CAT, we conclude
that the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?