Abushagif v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 19-60807 Document: 00516366493 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 22, 2022
No. 19-60807
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Muntaser B. Abubaker Abushagif,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A 200 910 227
Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
In our previous opinion, Abushagif v. Garland, 15 F.4th 323 (5th Cir.
2021), we decided every issue but one. We agreed with Abushagif that the
BIA had
abused its discretion by entirely failing to address his CAT
claim. On that point, he is correct. A CAT “claim is separate
from . . . claims for asylum and withholding of removal and
should receive separate analytical attention.” Efe v. Ashcroft,
293 F.3d 899, 906–07 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the BIA must
not leave asserted CAT claims unaddressed. See Eduard v.
Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 196 (5th Cir. 2004).
Id. at 335. We therefore “remand[ed] for the limited purpose of the Board’s
addressing Abushagif’s CAT claim.” Id.
Case: 19-60807 Document: 00516366493 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2022
No. 19-60807
The BIA did as directed. On March 4, 2022, it announced dismissal
of the appeal of the immigration judge’s order. The Board reasoned that the
“motion to reopen to seek protection under the CAT fails for the same rea-
sons that his motion to reopen for asylum and withholding of removal failed.
He did not meet his burden to establish his prima facie eligibility for relief.”
More specifically, the BIA noted, inter alia, that Abushagif had not
provided sufficient evidence to corroborate his alleged conversion to Christi-
anity or his bisexuality. The Board also concluded that the motion to reopen
“lacks veracity” shown by “documentary inconsistencies,” which “are
detrimental because they bear on whether the respondent has a clear proba-
bility of being tortured if he returns to Libya.”
Because there is no error, the petition for review is DENIED.
2