Case: 20-60386 Document: 00515786619 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 18, 2021 No. 20-60386 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Gipson Fernandes, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A216 075 024 Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Haynes and Costa, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Gipson Fernandes, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60386 Document: 00515786619 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 No. 20-60386 Against Torture (CAT). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). We have authority to review only the order of the BIA unless the underlying decision of the IJ influenced the BIA’s decision. Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). We will review both decisions to the extent the BIA adopted the findings and conclusions of the IJ. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Fernandes contends that the BIA erred by not conducting a meaningful analysis of the documentary evidence. The BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention. What is required is merely that it consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 908 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, as the IJ determined, the documentary evidence, read as a whole, showed instances of “random” and “isolated” adverse acts toward Christians at various times and in various locales in India. On appeal, the BIA determined that Fernandes had not shown error by the IJ because he had not pointed to evidence supporting the claim of a “pattern or practice . . . of persecution” that the IJ failed to consider. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii) (2021). Further, as the IJ noted, the documentary evidence showed that the laws of India protect freedom of religion. We conclude that Fernandes’s contention that the BIA failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of the documentary evidence lacks merit. See Efe, 293 F.3d at 908. Fernandes’s own testimony established that he and his family openly practiced Catholicism and were never harmed. Further, his family members in India have continued to practice the Catholic faith, without incident, after 2 Case: 20-60386 Document: 00515786619 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 No. 20-60386 Fernandes came to the United …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals