Case: 17-60646 Document: 00514648578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-60646 September 19, 2018 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LU ZHANG, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A087 823 582 Before BENAVIDES, HIGGINSON, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lu Zhang petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. Zhang asserts that the BIA erred by upholding the IJ’s determination that he is not credible because the IJ’s determination was based upon speculation. Because the BIA relied upon the IJ’s decision, we may * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-60646 Document: 00514648578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 No. 17-60646 review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). Credibility determinations are factual findings that we review for substantial evidence. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-40 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not reverse an immigration court’s factual findings unless the evidence “compels” such a reversal—i.e., the evidence must be “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id. at 536-37. The IJ and the BIA “may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Id. at 538 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Aside from adding a page of citations to legal authorities which, once set forth, are never again mentioned, Zhang’s amended brief is virtually identical to his original brief, which, in turn, was largely the same as the brief that he filed before the BIA. All three briefs were filed on Zhang’s behalf by attorney Donglai Yang. Argumentation in the amended brief consists of five paragraphs (less than three pages), only one paragraph of which even remotely addresses the BIA’s reasons for upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Not only does that single paragraph advance conclusory assertions, it incorrectly states that the inconsistencies cited by the BIA only arose during the cross- examination portion of Zhang’s testimony, when, in fact, the subjects at issue were all broached on direct examination. In short, Zhang identifies no evidence compelling the conclusion that the BIA erred by finding him not credible. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37. He does not raise, and has therefore abandoned, any arguments that the BIA erred by 2 Case: 17-60646 Document: 00514648578 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/19/2018 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals