Case: 19-60721 Document: 00515750575 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 19, 2021
No. 19-60721 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Mohammad Ridwannul Islam,
Petitioner,
versus
Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A215 913 360
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Mohammad Ridwannul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh,
appeals his order of removal. He contends that an adverse credibility finding
is not supported by substantial evidence. He further contends that he has
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60721 Document: 00515750575 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2021
No. 19-60721
proved his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture
claims.
The Board of Immigration Appeals in this case affirmed an adverse
credibility finding of the immigration judge. The immigration judge based
this finding on observations such as conflicting statements, demeanor during
testimony, and an apparent inability to provide details not already contained
in a previously provided written statement.
We grant deference to an immigration judge’s credibility
determination. Wang v. Holder, 569 F. 3d 531, 536-38 (5th Cir. 2009). A
credibility finding is proper if based on “any inconsistency or omission . . . as
long as the totality of the circumstances” supports the finding. Id. at 538
(quoting Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008)) We will not
reverse a credibility determination unless the evidence compels it. See
Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th Cir. 2020).
In this case, the immigration judge cited to several inconsistencies or
omissions. Reviewing the record, we are not compelled to find that Islam was
credible. See Id.
Argument regarding the merits of Islam’s asylum and withholding
claims is precluded by a lack of credible evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B);
Chun v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). Islam failed to exhaust his
Convention Against Torture claim by failing to brief it in his appeal to the
Board of Immigration Appeals.1 Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider
that claim. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 351 (5th Cir. 2009).
1
The Board of Immigration Appeals noted that Islam failed to brief the
Convention Against Torture issue, finding it waived. In our court, Islam does not challenge
that conclusion, arguing only the merits of his CAT claim.
2
Case: 19-60721 Document: 00515750575 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/19/2021
No. 19-60721
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3