Case: 20-61182 Document: 00516278598 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 13, 2022
No. 20-61182
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Bolivar Chowa,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A213 475 442
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Bolivar Chowa, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review
of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the
denial by the immigration judge (I.J.) of his application for asylum, with-
holding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-61182 Document: 00516278598 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2022
No. 20-61182
(“CAT”). According to Chowa, the BIA erred in affirming the denial of his
claims for asylum and withholding of removal based on an adverse-credibility
finding. Chowa has abandoned any challenge to the denial of his CAT claim
by failing to brief the issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.
1993); see also Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
We review the BIA’s decision and consider the I.J.’s decision only to
the extent that it influenced the BIA. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593
(5th Cir. 2007). Though legal questions are reviewed de novo, we review find-
ings of fact for substantial evidence. Id. at 594.
Chowa has failed to show that the adverse-credibility determination is
not supported by substantial evidence. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812,
817 (5th Cir. 2017). The I.J. extensively analyzed the record evidence, and
the BIA confirmed that the I.J. had set forth specific and cogent reasons,
derived from the record, that supported the adverse-credibility determina-
tion. See Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018). Significantly,
neither the I.J. nor the BIA was required to accept even plausible explanations
for the plain inconsistencies in Chowa’s story. See Santos-Alvarado v. Barr,
967 F.3d 428, 438–39 (5th Cir. 2020). Although the BIA apparently erred in
describing one of the inconsistencies noted by the I.J., it is not clear, from the
totality of the circumstances, that no reasonable factfinder could make an
adverse-credibility ruling. See Morales, 860 F.3d at 817.
Without credible evidence, there is no basis to analyze Chowa’s con-
tentions in favor of his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See
Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the petition for
review is DENIED.
2