Case: 20-60543 Document: 00516062739 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 20, 2021
No. 20-60543
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Carlos Neftali Banos-Megar,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 456 299
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Carlos Neftali Banos-Megar, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
The immigration judge (IJ) denied his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the convention against torture (CAT) based
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60543 Document: 00516062739 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2021
No. 20-60543
on an adverse credibility finding. The BIA upheld the credibility finding and
found that he had failed to meet the burden of proof for asylum and
withholding of removal. The BIA also found that Banos-Megar had waived
any challenge to denial of relief under the CAT by failing to brief the issue.
On appeal, Banos-Megar argues that the adverse credibility finding
was not supported by substantial evidence. We generally review only
decisions of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007).
However, when the IJ’s ruling affects the BIA’s decision, as it does here, we
review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. Id. Factual findings are
reviewed for substantial evidence, and constitutional claims and questions of
law are reviewed de novo. Fuentes-Pena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 827, 829 (5th Cir.
2019); Orellana–Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012).
Although Banos-Megar suggests possible explanations for the
negative credibility factors, the record does not compel the conclusion that
he should have been found credible. Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 410
(5th Cir. 2006). The inconsistencies listed by the IJ are accurate reflections
of the record. His explanations for the inconsistencies are not more
compelling than the IJ’s conclusions. Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 817
(5th Cir. 2017).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2