Case: 21-60330 Document: 00516369698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 24, 2022 No. 21-60330 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Stanley Nyiah Leke, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 213 189 691 Before Smith, Wiener, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Stanley Leke is a native and citizen of Cameroon. He claims that he has suffered brutal treatment at the hands of Cameroonian government offi- cials because they perceive him as a supporter of that country’s Anglophone separatist movement. He seeks protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). An Immigration Judge (“I.J.”) denied that request, and * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum- stances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-60330 Document: 00516369698 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 No. 21-60330 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed his ensuing appeal. Leke petitions for review. His sole claim appears to be that the BIA violated its own regulations when it failed to consider some of the evidence he intro- duced in support of his application. Because Leke hasn’t exhausted that claim, we dismiss his petition for want of jurisdiction. Before the I.J., Leke testified extensively about his experiences in Cameroon. He also introduced several pieces of nontestimonial evidence, such as doctor’s notes, country-conditions evidence, and letters from his law- yer and brother. The I.J. found that Leke was not credible and held that that finding was sufficient to deny CAT protection. Even so, the I.J. analyzed and rejected the rest of his claim “in the interest of a thorough decision.” Nota- bly, in finding Leke not credible and addressing the remainder of his claim, the I.J. analyzed the nontestimonial evidence that Leke introduced. Leke appealed. Among his arguments was that the I.J. erred in evalu- ating his credibility and the nontestimonial evidence he introduced. The BIA dismissed his appeal. It held that the I.J.’s credibility determination was not clearly erroneous and denied CAT protection on that basis. But it did not analyze some of Leke’s nontestimonial evidence in making that decision. Leke’s petition for review does not contest the adverse-credibility de- termination. Instead, he claims that the BIA violated its own regulations by relying on the adverse-credibility determination without considering the ad- ditional, nontestimonial evidence he introduced. 1 But Leke has not ex- hausted that claim, so we lack jurisdiction to review it. Ibrahim v. Garland, 19 1 See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3); see also Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597–98 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining that the BIA violates § 1208.16(c)(3) when it “treat[s] [an] adverse credibility determination as dispositive of [an alien’s] CAT claim” and fails to con- sider “independent, non-testimonial evidence . . . that could independently establish [an alien’s] entitlement to CAT relief”). 2 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals