Case: 21-60839 Document: 00516532887 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-60839
FILED
Summary Calendar November 3, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Bernard Anoumbissi, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A213 455 940
Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Bernard Anoumbissi, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal
from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) finding him not credible and
denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60839 Document: 00516532887 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2022
No. 21-60839
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA agreed with the IJ:
Anoumbissi’s testimony was not credible; and he failed to present sufficient
corroborating evidence to support his claims. He challenges the adverse
credibility determination and maintains he presented sufficient evidence
showing his eligibility for relief.
To the extent Anoumbissi contends inconsistencies in his testimony
are due to language barriers, these claims are unexhausted because they were
not presented to the BIA. Therefore, our court lacks jurisdiction to consider
them. E.g., Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022);
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence; its
conclusions of law, de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th
Cir. 2001). The substantial-evidence standard applies to factual
determinations that an alien is ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT protection. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
Under this standard, our court will reverse the BIA’s decision only when
“the evidence compels a contrary conclusion”. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS,
78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). “In other words, the alien must show that
the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude
against it.” Id.
The IJ’s ruling is reviewed only to the extent it affected the BIA’s
decision. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). In determining
credibility, the IJ “may rely on any inconsistency or omission”. Singh v.
Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). If the IJ determines the “totality of the circumstances”
requires an adverse credibility finding, our court will defer to that finding so
long as it is “supported by specific and cogent reasons”. Singh, 880 F.3d at
225 (citations omitted).
2
Case: 21-60839 Document: 00516532887 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/03/2022
No. 21-60839
The BIA and IJ found: numerous inconsistencies, as noted in part
above, between Anoumbissi’s testimony and other record evidence;
significant omissions in affidavits he submitted; and several aspects of his
testimony implausible. As a result, the adverse credibility determination was
“supported by specific and cogent reasons”. Id. He fails to show the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538
(5th Cir. 2009) (IJ’s adverse credibility decisions upheld unless no reasonable
fact finder could reach such result).
As the adverse credibility finding was proper, the evidence does not
compel a finding he was eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT
relief. E.g., Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763–70 (5th Cir. 2020) (where
petitioner’s testimony is incredible, failure to provide sufficient
corroborating evidence may be “fatal to an alien’s application for relief”);
Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907–08 (5th Cir. 2002) (CAT relief requires
applicant show “it is more likely than not” he would be tortured).
DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3