Case: 21-60537 Document: 00516418486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 3, 2022
No. 21-60537
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Ferdinand Folebe Asongafac,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A213 186 543
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ferdinand Folebe Asongafac is a native and citizen of Cameroon. He
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) concluding
that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60537 Document: 00516418486 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2022
No. 21-60537
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s decision and will
consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Singh
v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
Asongafac attacks the various inconsistencies cited by the BIA in
support of its affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Neither the IJ
nor the BIA, however, was required to accept Asongafac’s explanations for
the discrepancies, even if those explanations were plausible. See Santos-
Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2020). The BIA cited “specific
and cogent reasons derived from the record” to support the adverse
credibility determination. Singh, 880 F.3d at 225 (quoting Wang v. Holder,
569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009)). Asongafac has failed to demonstrate that
it is clear from the totality of the circumstances that no reasonable factfinder
could make an adverse credibility ruling in his case. Wang, 569 F.3d at 538-
40.
The record also reflects that the IJ and the BIA gave “meaningful
consideration” to what Asongafac labels corroborating evidence. Cabrera v.
Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 162 (5th Cir. 2018). He has not shown that the record
compels this court to overturn the BIA’s determination to the extent it
determined that he failed to present reasonably available corroborating
evidence. See Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 587 (5th Cir. 2011).
Asongafac also asserts that the agency failed to consider evidence of
country conditions in Cameroon. The country reports do not “resolve the
inconsistencies that the BIA found so troubling,” and Asongafac “has
offered no explanation for how these materials corroborate, much less
independently support, his claims.” Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 290
(5th Cir. 2019).
The IJ’s, as affirmed by the BIA, adverse credibility determination,
which is supported by substantial evidence, is fatal to Asongafac’s claims for
2
Case: 21-60537 Document: 00516418486 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/03/2022
No. 21-60537
asylum and withholding of removal because, without credible testimony,
Asongafac cannot establish the requisite subjective fear of future persecution.
See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597 (5th Cir. 2021). Asongafac has
abandoned his claim for protection under the CAT because he has not raised
a challenge to the denial of that claim. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830,
833 (5th Cir. 2003).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3