Case: 20-60863 Document: 00516385982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 7, 2022
No. 20-60863 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Kem Divine Tikum,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A203 679 984
Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Kem Divine Tikum, a native and citizen of Cameroon who was
removed in November 2020, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He challenges: the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60863 Document: 00516385982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2022
No. 20-60863
BIA’s failure to remand this matter to the Immigration Judge (IJ) in the light
of the invalidation of a regulation that rendered him ineligible for asylum
previously; the BIA’s adverse credibility finding; the denial of his asylum and
withholding claims; and the denial of CAT relief.
Because Tikum failed to raise before the BIA the remand issue, our
court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27
F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022) (explaining that motion to reconsider required
“when [BIA’s] decision itself results in a new issue and the [BIA] has an
available and adequate means for addressing it”).
In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent it
influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual findings,
for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellano-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–
18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial-evidence standard, petitioner must
demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
could reach a contrary conclusion”. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134
(5th Cir. 2006).
An adverse-credibility determination is a factual finding. Singh v.
Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224–25 (5th Cir. 2018). Therefore, “if the IJ’s
credibility determinations are supported by the record, they will be
affirmed”. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009). In making an
adverse-credibility determination, “[the] IJ may rely on any inconsistency or
omission . . . as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an
asylum applicant is not credible”. Id. at 538 (citation omitted) (emphasis in
original).
Consideration of the record does not show that “no reasonable fact-
finder” could make such a determination. See Singh, 880 F.3d at 225
(citation omitted). Because the credibility findings were sufficient to support
the BIA’s decision that the IJ did not err in denying Tikum’s requests for
2
Case: 20-60863 Document: 00516385982 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2022
No. 20-60863
asylum and withholding, our court need not consider his remaining assertions
regarding these forms of relief. See Chun v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.
1994).
Although Tikum stated he was contesting the denial of CAT relief, he
briefs no challenge to the BIA’s adoption of the IJ’s conclusion that Tikum
failed to make the required showing that he was harmed by the Cameroonian
authorities or faces a likelihood of torture. He has, therefore, abandoned his
challenge to the denial of CAT relief. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830,
833 (5th Cir. 2003) (explaining merits of appeal abandoned when petitioner
makes no assertion “that the decision in his case is not supported by
substantial evidence”).
DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3