Misikir Tesfaye v. Loretta Lynch ( 2017 )

Case: 15-60545 Document: 00513819607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 15-60545
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar January 3, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
MISIKIR GETACHEW TESFAYE, Clerk
Petitioner
v.
LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 679 429
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Misikir Getachew Tesfaye, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). With
respect to his asylum and withholding-of-removal claims, Tesfaye challenges
the immigration judge’s finding that his testimony was not credible, but he
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 15-60545 Document: 00513819607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2017
No. 15-60545
fails to show that it is plain from the totality of the circumstances that “no
reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Wang
v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). While he also challenges the finding that he did not establish
his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, Tesfaye fails to show that
“any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.
2006).
In addition, Tesfaye also challenges the adverse credibility
determination in the context of his CAT claim. Again, he has not shown that
“any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
§ 1252(b)(4)(B). Although Tesfaye challenges the denial of CAT protection on
the ground that the ruling erroneously rests on an adverse credibility
determination from the asylum context, the adverse credibility assessment
here goes directly to the issue whether Tesfaye is likely to be tortured in
Ethiopia. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907-08 (5th Cir. 2002). Tesfaye’s
challenge to the denial of CAT protection fails because he does not show that
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find that it is more likely
than not that he would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. See § 1252(b)(4)(B);
see Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005).
PETITION DENIED.
2