Awanayah v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60291 Document: 00516065467 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 22, 2021
No. 20-60291
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Bertrand A. Awanayah, also known as Bertrand Atenekara
Awanayah,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 781 436
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Petitioner Bertrand A. Awanayah, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”),
dismissing his appeal of a decision in which an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60291 Document: 00516065467 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2021
No. 20-60291
denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Awanayah asserts in his
application for relief that he suffered past persecution at the hands of the
Anglophone Restoration Forces (“ARF”) and the Cameroonian police.
Awanayah also claims that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution
at the hands of the Cameroonian police based on his imputed political
opinion, Anglophone separatism.1
An alien must exhaust all administrative remedies available to him as
of right before this court may review a final order. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1),
(d)(1); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318–20 (5th Cir. 2009). Awanayah
failed to exhaust, before the BIA, his CAT claim and his claim for asylum
based on past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution at the
hands of the ARF.2 We lack jurisdiction, therefore, to consider these claims
and dismiss them accordingly. See Omari, 562 F.3d at 318–20.
Awanayah did exhaust his claim, however, that the BIA erred in
affirming the IJ’s ruling that Awanayah had failed to establish past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution at the hands of the
Cameroonian police on the basis of an imputed political opinion. We review
factual findings under the substantial evidence standard and legal questions
de novo. Fuentes-Pena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 827, 829 (5th Cir. 2019). We may not
reverse the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard
unless “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail
1
Awanayah disclaims any actual separatist beliefs.
2
In fact, Awanayah conceded that “the IJ correctly found that the past harm
inflicted on him . . . and his fear of future persecution” by the ARF “did not qualify him
for asylum.”
2
Case: 20-60291 Document: 00516065467 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/22/2021
No. 20-60291
to find otherwise.” Id. (quoting Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444
(5th Cir. 2001)).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that Awanayah
failed to show that he suffered past persecution or that he had a reasonable,
well-founded fear of future persecution, based on an imputed political
opinion. The conditions that the Cameroonian police inflicted on Awanayah
were not extreme enough to support a finding of past persecution. Awanayah
bases his claim of past persecution at the hands of the police on an October
2017 detention of two days, during which he was called an “Anglo fool.”
Awanayah testified, however, that the detention “was not the immediate
cause that made” him leave Cameroon and that “everything was okay”
following the detention, which was “nothing like . . . jail” and which ended
when “they just asked us to go.”
As for fear of future persecution, Awanayah theorizes that, if he
returns to Cameroon, the police will treat him as a separatist. He bases this
theory on (1) his past detention and (2) the fact that the police sought to
question him following a shootout between them and the ARF at his place of
employment, a hotel. Awanayah testified, however, that—following his
release from detention—“life was moving on with nobody threaten[ing]”
him or “com[ing] up after” him. As for the shootout where he worked, the
record only establishes that the police sought to question him in the aftermath
and perhaps suspected that he had provided information to the separatists
beforehand.3 That does not rise to the level of evidence “so compelling that
3
Awanayah testified that his neighbor indicated the police sought to question him
about the incident but told him nothing else. His neighbor swore in an affidavit, however,
that Awanayah had “been accused by the pro-government forces to have been the one who
invited the armed separatist group” to the hotel.
3
Case: 20-60291 Document: 00516065467 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/22/2021
No. 20-60291
no reasonable fact finder could fail to find” that Awanayah has a well-
founded fear of future persecution. Fuentes-Pena, 917 F.3d at 829.
Lastly, Awanayah cannot meet the standard for withholding of
removal because he fails to satisfy the less stringent asylum standard. See
Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012).
The petition for review is DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED
IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.
4