eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2021-06

Adnan v. Garland ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-60383     Document: 00515907199         Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/21/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                               United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 21, 2021
No. 20-60383                           Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar                              Clerk
Abu Rayhan Adnan,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A203 652 705
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Abu Rayhan Adnan, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions this
court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
He contends that the BIA erred in affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
adverse credibility determination and denial of his applications for asylum,
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60383       Document: 00515907199         Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-60383
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”).
We review only the BIA’s decision “unless the IJ’s decision has some
impact on the BIA’s decision.” Wang v. Holder,
    569 F.3d 531
    , 536 (5th Cir.
2009). Credibility determinations and determinations that an alien is not
eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT are
factual findings that are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.
Avelar-Oliva v. Barr,
    954 F.3d 757
    , 763 (5th Cir. 2020); Chen v. Gonzales,
    470 F.3d 1131
    , 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under that standard, we may not reverse the
BIA’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang,
    569 F.3d at 537
    .
Adnan contends that the adverse credibility determination was in
error because the inconsistencies between his testimony, credible fear
interview, and documents submitted in support of his application were minor
and unrelated to his claims. However, the IJ was permitted to rely on any
inconsistency to determine Adnan’s credibility, see Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at
768, and the determination was supported by specific reasons based on the
evidence presented and was, under the totality of the circumstances,
substantially reasonable. See Wang,
    569 F.3d at 
    538–39. The adverse
credibility determination was supported by “specific and cogent reasons,”
so the record does not compel a finding that Adnan was credible. Zhang v.
Gonzales,
    432 F.3d 339
    , 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the lack
of credible evidence prevents Adnan from meeting his burden of proof for
asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT. See Dayo v. Holder,
    687 F.3d 653
    , 658–59 (5th Cir. 2012); Chun v. INS,
    40 F.3d 76
    , 79 (5th Cir.
1994).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2