Case: 19-13849 Date Filed: 08/26/2020 Page: 1 of 18 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13849 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A216-267-806 KIMBA P. NGANA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 26, 2020) Before BRANCH, LUCK, and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Kimba P. Ngana, a native and citizen of Angola, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order dismissing his appeal of the immigration Case: 19-13849 Date Filed: 08/26/2020 Page: 2 of 18 judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 1 After careful review, we deny his petition. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In November 2017, Ngana entered the United States in San Ysidro, California without valid entry documents and was detained and interviewed by border patrol agents. Ngana explained to them that he was harmed in Angola and feared returning; was not a member of a political party or group that was being persecuted in Angola; fled because of police brutality, poverty, and unemployment; and did not seek asylum in any of the countries he travelled through on his way to the United States. After Ngana was kept in detention for a few weeks, an asylum officer conducted a credible fear interview. During the credible fear interview, Ngana said that he feared returning to Angola because he was threatened and harmed by police officers there. Ngana claimed that, in 2014, Angolan police officers confiscated his phone for taking pictures of them in a stadium, searched it, found “videos of a revolutionary rapper” named Brigadeiro dez Pacotes, and detained him for seventeen to nineteen days. According to Ngana, it was a crime to support the rapper because he spoke “against 1 Ngana did not administratively challenge the immigration judge’s denial of CAT relief with the board. Because he failed to exhaust this claim, we lack jurisdiction to review it. Amaya- Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (“We lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect thereto.”). 2 Case: 19-13849 Date Filed: 08/26/2020 Page: 3 of 18 the revolution.” Ngana said that, during his detainment, he was stripped of his clothes, tortured, and forced to wash police cars and sweep the yard because he “was speaking in bad terms of the president and the government.” The officers, Ngana continued, released him only after he “signed a paper” stating that he would pay them money monthly. He said he was able to make two payments but, because he could not afford to make another payment, he escaped to another province in Angola, leaving his barbershop business behind. Ngana claimed to have stayed in the province for six months and then travelled to Brazil, where he remained for almost a year before he made ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals