Marichman Budha Magar v. Loretta Lynch
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A201-109-064. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999767044] [15-1548]
Appeal: 15-1548
Doc: 23
Filed: 03/03/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1548
MARICHMAN BUDHA MAGAR,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted:
January 14, 2016
Decided:
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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1548
Doc: 23
Filed: 03/03/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Marichman
Budha
Magar,
a
native
and
citizen
of
Nepal,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
(Board)
judge’s
(IJ)
withholding
dismissing
order
of
his
denying
removal,
Against Torture (CAT).
and
appeal
his
from
the
applications
protection
under
immigration
for
the
asylum,
Convention
We deny the petition for review.
To be eligible for asylum, Magar must show that he has a
well-founded
fear
of
persecution
on
account
of
a
protected
ground if he returns to Nepal.
Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921,
927
can
(4th
Cir.
establishing
2013).
his
past
future persecution.
Magar
persecution
Id.
meet
or
a
his
burden
either
well-founded
fear
by
of
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
protected ground.
Cir. 2011).
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.
The
IJ,
after
“[c]onsidering
the
Id.
totality
of
the
circumstances, and all relevant factors,” may make an adverse
credibility
determination
applicant’s
account,
the
based
on
consistency
the
plausibility
between
the
of
the
applicant’s
written and oral statements, the internal consistency of each
such statement, the consistency of such statements with other
2
Appeal: 15-1548
Doc: 23
Filed: 03/03/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
evidence of record, or any other relevant factor.
8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)
928.
(2012);
Hui
Pan,
737
F.3d
at
A
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).
such
inconsistencies,
“The existence of only a few
omissions,
or
contradictions
sufficient” to support an adverse credibility finding.
can
be
Djadjou,
662 F.3d at 273-74.
The scope of our review is narrow.
926.
Hui Pan, 737 F.3d at
We will affirm so long as the decision “is not manifestly
contrary
to
law.”
“[A]dministrative
Id.
findings
(internal
of
fact
quotation
are
marks
conclusive
omitted).
unless
any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.”
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.
(1992).
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.”
We
conclude
that
substantial
evidence
Id. at 483-84.
supports
the
IJ’s
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.
3
We also conclude that
Appeal: 15-1548
Doc: 23
Filed: 03/03/2016
Pg: 4 of 4
substantial evidence supports the finding that Magar did not
establish
eligibility
for
asylum
through independent evidence.
213
(4th
Cir.
2015).
or
withholding
of
removal
Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199,
Additionally,
to
the
extent
Magar
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.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4
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?