Case: 21-60424 Document: 00516476311 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 19, 2022 No. 21-60424 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Oscar Danilo Gonzales-Jimenes, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A213 544 246 Before Davis, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Oscar Danilo Gonzales-Jimenes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum, * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-60424 Document: 00516476311 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2022 No. 21-60424 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This court has the authority to review only the final decision of the BIA unless the underlying decision of the IJ influenced the BIA’s decision. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). In Gonzales-Jimenes’s case, the BIA affirmed the findings and conclusions of the IJ. Therefore, we review both decisions. See id. The BIA’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence, and we will not disturb such findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. at 517-18. Gonzales-Jimenes argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because the IJ did not consider the “totality of the circumstances” in evaluating his credibility and, instead, relied exclusively on the omissions from his credible fear interview. It is clear from the record, however, that the IJ and the BIA considered the “totality of the circumstances” in making the adverse credibility determination in Gonzales-Jimenes’s case. See Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018). Moreover, under this court’s precedent, “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission . . . so long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 593 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “This includes inconsistencies and omissions that arise when comparing an applicant’s statements in a credible-fear interview to his testimony at an immigration hearing.” Id. Gonzales-Jimenes has failed to demonstrate that no reasonable factfinder could make an adverse credibility ruling in his case. See Singh, 880 F.3d at 225. Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse 2 Case: 21-60424 Document: 00516476311 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/19/2022 No. 21-60424 credibility determination. See id. Without credible evidence, the BIA had no basis to grant asylum or withholding of removal. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we will not disturb the agency’s denial of these claims. Gonzales-Jimenes argues …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals