Case: 20-60386 Document: 00515786619 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 18, 2021
No. 20-60386 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Gipson Fernandes,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A216 075 024
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Haynes and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Gipson Fernandes, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal
from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60386 Document: 00515786619 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2021
No. 20-60386
Against Torture (CAT). We review factual findings for substantial evidence
and legal conclusions de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517
(5th Cir. 2012).
We have authority to review only the order of the BIA unless the
underlying decision of the IJ influenced the BIA’s decision. Mikhael v. I.N.S.,
115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). We will review both decisions to the extent
the BIA adopted the findings and conclusions of the IJ. See Zhu v. Gonzales,
493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007).
Fernandes contends that the BIA erred by not conducting a
meaningful analysis of the documentary evidence. The BIA “does not have
to write an exegesis on every contention. What is required is merely that it
consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to
enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not
merely reacted.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 908 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, as the IJ determined, the documentary evidence, read as a
whole, showed instances of “random” and “isolated” adverse acts toward
Christians at various times and in various locales in India. On appeal, the
BIA determined that Fernandes had not shown error by the IJ because he had
not pointed to evidence supporting the claim of a “pattern or practice . . . of
persecution” that the IJ failed to consider. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)
(2021). Further, as the IJ noted, the documentary evidence showed that the
laws of India protect freedom of religion. We conclude that Fernandes’s
contention that the BIA failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of the
documentary evidence lacks merit. See Efe, 293 F.3d at 908.
Fernandes’s own testimony established that he and his family openly
practiced Catholicism and were never harmed. Further, his family members
in India have continued to practice the Catholic faith, without incident, after
2
Case: 20-60386 Document: 00515786619 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/18/2021
No. 20-60386
Fernandes came to the United States. This weighs against a determination
that Fernandes has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of
his religion or his membership in a particular social group of Catholics in Goa,
India. See Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 682, 683-84 (5th Cir. 2016)
(summary calendar) (per curiam).
In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that Fernandes failed to meet his burden of proof for asylum
because he did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See
Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 396 (5th Cir. 2020). As Fernandes failed to
establish eligibility for asylum, he cannot prevail on his claim for withholding
of removal. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012)
(summary calendar).
Fernandes also argues that the decisions of the IJ and the
BIA regarding his claim for protection under the CAT are not supported by
substantial evidence. For purposes of the CAT, “[t]orture is defined as any
act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted . . . by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or
acquiescence of, a public official . . . or other person acting in an official
capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (2021).
As the IJ determined, the record shows that the Indian government is
engaged in ongoing efforts to curb extremist violence and has implemented
laws to protect religious freedom. The IJ acknowledged that such efforts
have not been entirely successful. But he determined that, given the
government’s efforts, he could not conclude that the government would
acquiesce in torture. Further, as the IJ noted, the evidence of record shows
that Fernandes and his family have never been harmed in India, much less
tortured. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the denial of
Fernandes’s CAT claim is supported by substantial evidence. See Chen
3
Case: 20-60386 Document: 00515786619 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/18/2021
No. 20-60386
v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1139 (5th Cir. 2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)
(2021).
* * *
The petition for review is DENIED.
4
Fernandes v. Garland
Combined Opinion