Valladares v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 21-60340 Document: 00516402594 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 21, 2022
No. 21-60340
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Edgar Alfredo Valladares,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A200 956 018
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Edgar Alfredo Valladares, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from a decision of the immigration judge (IJ)
concluding that he was ineligible for withholding of removal and relief under
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60340 Document: 00516402594 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
No. 21-60340
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination; on that basis, it concluded that Valladares had
failed to establish an eligibility for relief.
Valladares challenges the BIA’s credibility determination, raising
arguments that attempt to explain away the several inconsistencies identified
by the BIA. However, the BIA cited “specific and cogent reasons derived
from the record” to support its adverse credibility determination. Singh
v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Valladares
has failed to demonstrate that it is clear from “the totality of the
circumstances” that “no reasonable factfinder” could make an adverse
credibility ruling in his case. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir.
2009). Thus, the adverse credibility determination is supported by
substantial evidence. See id. at 536-40.
Without credible evidence, there was no basis for the BIA to grant
withholding of removal. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).
Further, although an adverse credibility determination is not necessarily
dispositive of a CAT claim, Valladares has pointed to “no independent, non-
testimonial evidence going to the likelihood of torture,” and therefore the
adverse credibility finding is also decisive of his CAT claim. Arulnanthy
v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597-98 (5th Cir. 2021) (quotation on 598).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2