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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999767044] [15-1548]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1548 Doc: 23 Filed: 03/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1548 MARICHMAN BUDHA MAGAR, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?