Mbeawoh v. Garland

Case: 21-60102 Document: 00516430416 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2022

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 12, 2022
No. 21-60102
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk

Donard Mbeawoh,

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A203 600 568

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Donard Mbeawoh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60102 Document: 00516430416 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2022

No. 21-60102

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).
Attacking the agency’s adverse credibility determination, Mbeawoh
asserts that the inconsistencies and omissions identified by the BIA were
minor and were explained by his testimony. He asserts that his credible fear
interview (CFI) should be given less weight than his testimony before the IJ
in determining his credibility. Mbeawoh also argues that the BIA erred in
taking into account his failure to provide corroborating evidence in making
the adverse credibility determination.
The above contentions lack merit. “The factfinder may rely on any
inconsistency or omission to determine that the petitioner is not credible in
light of the totality of the circumstances, regardless of whether the
inconsistency or omission goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim,” and
“discrepancies among an alien’s CFI, other records, and testimony can be
considered in deciding credibility.” Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767,
765 (5th Cir. 2020). Neither the IJ nor the BIA was required to accept
Mbeawoh’s explanations for the discrepancies, even if those explanations
were plausible. See Santos-Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir.
2020). Further, the BIA does not err in partially basing an adverse credibility
determination on Mbeawoh’s failure to produce corroborating evidence. See
Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at 772. Here, the BIA cited “specific and cogent
reasons derived from the record” to support the adverse credibility
determination. Singh, 880 F.3d at 225 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Mbeawoh has failed to demonstrate that it is clear from the totality
of the circumstances that no reasonable factfinder could make an adverse

2
Case: 21-60102 Document: 00516430416 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/12/2022

No. 21-60102

credibility ruling in his case. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538-40 (5th
Cir. 2009).1
Mbeawoh’s argument that the agency erred by failing to consider his
corroborating evidence in evaluating his asylum claim is refuted by the
record, which reflects that the BIA gave “meaningful consideration” to such
evidence. Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 162 (5th Cir. 2018). His assertion
that the BIA erred because it failed to consider the evidence of country
conditions that supported his claim of a fear of future persecution on account
of his political opinion is unavailing. The agency’s broad adverse credibility
determination is fatal to his claims for asylum and withholding of removal,
because, without credible testimony, Mbeawoh’s cannot establish the
requisite subjective fear of future persecution. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17
F.4th 586, 597 (5th Cir. 2021).
Finally, because Mbeawoh has not raised a challenge to the denial of
his claim for protection under the CAT, he has abandoned the claim. See
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). The petition for
review is DENIED.

1
To the extent that Mbeawoh challenges inconsistencies which the BIA did not
rely on in its credibility analysis and raises contentions that relate to the IJ’s determination
that he had not met his burden to establish his identity, we do not consider the issues raised
because the BIA did not address them. See Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at 766-67.