UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marichman Budha Magar, a native and citizen of Nepal, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration 

judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT). 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 (4th Cir. 2013). Magar can meet his burden either by

establishing his past persecution or a well-founded fear of 

future persecution. Id. 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. Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272 (4th 

Cir. 2011). If Magar fails to prove his eligibility for asylum, 

he is also ineligible for withholding of removal. Id. 

The IJ, after “[c]onsidering the totality of the 

circumstances, and all relevant factors,” may make an adverse 

credibility determination based on the plausibility of the 

applicant’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s 

written and oral statements, the internal consistency of each 

such statement, the consistency of such statements with other 
3

evidence of record, or any other relevant factor. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2012); Hui Pan, 737 F.3d at 928. 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). “The existence of only a few 

such inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions can be 

sufficient” to support an adverse credibility finding. Djadjou, 

662 F.3d at 273-74. 

The scope of our review is narrow. Hui Pan, 737 F.3d at 

926. We will affirm so long as the decision “is not manifestly 

contrary to law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive 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. INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 

(1992). 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.

We conclude that substantial evidence 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. We also conclude that 
4

substantial evidence supports the finding that Magar did not 

establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal 

through independent evidence. Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 

213 (4th Cir. 2015). 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