Case: 20-60777 Document: 00516158680 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-60777 January 7, 2022 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Mente Collins, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A203 605 021 Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Haynes and Costa, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Mente Collins, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60777 Document: 00516158680 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2022 No. 20-60777 (CAT). The BIA decided that the IJ did not clearly err in finding that Collins was not credible and that his corroborating evidence did not rectify his failure to present otherwise credible evidence. We generally review the order of the BIA and consider the decision of the IJ to the extent that it influenced the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Whether an alien has shown his eligibility for relief is a factual finding that we review for substantial evidence. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). We likewise review credibility findings for substantial evidence. Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020). Under that standard, reversal is merited only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134; see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Collins asserts that the IJ and the BIA applied the incorrect standard in evaluating whether his border interview could be used to make credibility findings, and he disputes the BIA’s conclusion that he waived his opportunity to challenge the IJ’s use of the interview as a basis for the adverse credibility finding. He did not assert before the BIA a claim as to the IJ’s consideration of the border interview or file a motion to reopen or to reconsider challenging the BIA’s decision-making. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319-21 (5th Cir. 2009). His claims as to his border interview thus are unexhausted, and we lack jurisdiction to review them. See id. at 318, 321; Hernandez-De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784, 786 (5th Cir. 2016). Collins otherwise has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA and IJ as to whether he was credible. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2009). Aside from discrepancies between Collins’s border interview and testimony, the BIA relied on (1) discrepancies between his credible-fear interview and testimony, and (2) the implausibility of his account. The record …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals