Case: 20-61071 Document: 00516202118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 14, 2022
No. 20-61071 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Nathania Funa,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A203 600 491
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Nathania Funa, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review
of an order 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 raises arguments
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-61071 Document: 00516202118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2022
No. 20-61071
concerning the BIA’s declining to consider the applicability of the transit ban
of 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(4) and whether he should receive asylum
notwithstanding the adverse credibility decision. He fails to brief, and has
thus abandoned, the issue whether the BIA erred by upholding the
immigration judge’s (IJ’s) adverse credibility decision, as well as any issues
he may have had related to the denial of withholding of removal and CAT
relief. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
This court is authorized to review only the BIA’s decision and thus
considers the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v.
Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Consequently, insofar as Funa
challenges the IJ’s application of the transit bar, we will not consider this
issue. See id. Insofar as he argues that the BIA erred by not considering
application of the transit bar, this argument fails, as an adverse credibility
finding is a sufficient basis for the denial of asylum. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d
76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). Finally, we will not consider his argument that he
should receive asylum notwithstanding the adverse credibility finding due to
the strength of his documentary evidence because he did not present it to the
BIA. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004). The petition for
review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
2