Case: 20-60291 Document: 00516065467 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 22, 2021 No. 20-60291 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Bertrand A. Awanayah, also known as Bertrand Atenekara Awanayah, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 781 436 Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Petitioner Bertrand A. Awanayah, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), dismissing his appeal of a decision in which an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-60291 Document: 00516065467 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2021 No. 20-60291 denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Awanayah asserts in his application for relief that he suffered past persecution at the hands of the Anglophone Restoration Forces (“ARF”) and the Cameroonian police. Awanayah also claims that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution at the hands of the Cameroonian police based on his imputed political opinion, Anglophone separatism.1 An alien must exhaust all administrative remedies available to him as of right before this court may review a final order. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (d)(1); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318–20 (5th Cir. 2009). Awanayah failed to exhaust, before the BIA, his CAT claim and his claim for asylum based on past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution at the hands of the ARF.2 We lack jurisdiction, therefore, to consider these claims and dismiss them accordingly. See Omari, 562 F.3d at 318–20. Awanayah did exhaust his claim, however, that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s ruling that Awanayah had failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution at the hands of the Cameroonian police on the basis of an imputed political opinion. We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard and legal questions de novo. Fuentes-Pena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 827, 829 (5th Cir. 2019). We may not reverse the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard unless “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail 1 Awanayah disclaims any actual separatist beliefs. 2 In fact, Awanayah conceded that “the IJ correctly found that the past harm inflicted on him . . . and his fear of future persecution” by the ARF “did not qualify him for asylum.” 2 Case: 20-60291 Document: 00516065467 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/22/2021 No. 20-60291 to find otherwise.” Id. (quoting Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001)). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that Awanayah failed to show that he suffered past persecution or that he had a reasonable, well-founded …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals