Case: 20-61080 Document: 00516363871 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 21, 2022 No. 20-61080 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Pius Atabong Ngutese, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A203 599 372 Before Barksdale, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Pius Atabong Ngutese, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for: asylum; withholding of removal; and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He asserts: the BIA * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-61080 Document: 00516363871 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2022 No. 20-61080 erred in affirming the IJ’s adverse-credibility determination; and he is entitled to protection under CAT. In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent it influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual findings, for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellano-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517– 18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial-evidence standard, petitioner must demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). An adverse-credibility determination is a factual finding. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018). Therefore, “if the IJ’s credibility determinations are supported by the record, they will be affirmed”. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009). In making an adverse-credibility determination, “[the] IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission . . . as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible”. Id. at 538 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Despite Ngutese’s assertions to the contrary, the adverse-credibility determination was “supported by specific and cogent reasons” based on the evidence presented and was, under the totality of the circumstances, substantially reasonable. See Singh, 880 F.3d 225–26. Because the adverse credibility determination was supported by “specific and cogent reasons”, the record does not compel a finding that he was credible or that no reasonable factfinder could have made an adverse-credibility finding. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the lack of credible evidence precluded Ngutese from meeting his burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal. To obtain CAT relief, applicant must show, inter alia, “it is more likely than not” he will be tortured in his home country “at the instigation 2 Case: 20-61080 Document: 00516363871 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2022 No. 20-61080 of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity”. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2) (eligibility for withholding of removal under CAT), 1208.18(a)(1) (defining torture). Ngutese …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals