USCA11 Case: 21-12630 Date Filed: 09/08/2022 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12630 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ TRUNG BAO HOANG, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A213-557-501 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-12630 Date Filed: 09/08/2022 Page: 2 of 7 2 Opinion of the Court 21-12630 Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Trung Bao Hoang (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Vi- etnam, petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immi- gration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied Petitioner’s applications for asylum, for withholding of removal, and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). No reversible error has been shown; we deny the petition. Petitioner entered the United States in February 2020 and was charged as removable. Petitioner -- through his lawyer -- con- ceded removability and applied for asylum, for withholding of re- moval, and for CAT relief. In support of his applications for relief, Petitioner alleged that he had been persecuted by the Vietnamese government on account of his political opinion. The IJ denied Petitioner relief. The IJ found Petitioner lacked credibility “as to the central facts underlying” his claims for relief. In making that adverse credibility finding, the IJ described portions of Petitioner’s testimony that the IJ found implausible, identified several inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony (includ- ing internal inconsistencies and inconsistencies with other evi- dence), and noted that Petitioner’s claims lacked independent cor- roborating evidence. Given the adverse credibility finding and the USCA11 Case: 21-12630 Date Filed: 09/08/2022 Page: 3 of 7 21-12630 Opinion of the Court 3 lack of reliable evidence corroborating Petitioner’s claims, the IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for asylum, for withholding of re- moval, and for CAT relief. Petitioner -- through his lawyer -- filed a notice of appeal to the BIA. On the notice-of-appeal form, Petitioner’s lawyer checked a box indicating that Petitioner intended to file a separate written brief. Never did Petitioner, however, file an appellate brief. At- tached to Petitioner’s notice of appeal were three news articles (dated January, June, and September 2020). In a supplemental fil- ing, Petitioner submitted two additional news articles (both dated March 2021) and supplemental statements from himself and from his wife. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. First, the BIA concluded that Petitioner waived any challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination that Pe- titioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for relief. Second, the BIA construed Petitioner’s submission of new evidence as a motion to remand. The BIA denied the motion because none of the newly- submitted evidence was likely to change the outcome of Peti- tioner’s case and because at least some of the evidence was availa- ble at the time of Petitioner’s December 2020 merits hearing. This appeal followed. Because the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals