UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1630
GHANA SHYAM POUDEL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: January 13, 2014
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ramesh K. Shrestha, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart
F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
Assistant Director, Jamie M. Dowd, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ghana Shyam Poudel, 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 denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for
review.
We must affirm a determination regarding eligibility
for asylum or withholding of removal if it is supported by
substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative
findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We review legal issues de novo,
“affording appropriate deference to the [Board]’s interpretation
of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and any attendant
regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th
Cir. 2008). 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.” Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that
an alien is not eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless
2
manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.’”
Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2012)).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the finding that Poudel
failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution in Nepal. We therefore uphold the
denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal.
See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004)
(“Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is
higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be
proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum
is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8
U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”).
Additionally, Poudel challenges the denial of his
request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. To
qualify for such protection, a petitioner bears the burden of
proof of showing “it is more likely than not that he or she
would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2013). Based on our review
of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports
the denial of his request for relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales,
495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of
review).
3
We therefore deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4