Nelson Burinyuy v. Wilkinson ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60823 Document: 00515744762 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 15, 2021
No. 19-60823 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Wimgo Nelson Burinyuy,
Petitioner,
versus
Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 428 271
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Petitioner Wimgo Nelson Burinyuy, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60823 Document: 00515744762 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2021
No. 19-60823
(CAT). He challenges the BIA’s decision that he lacked credibility and that
he failed to provide sufficient corroborative evidence to overcome the
adverse credibility finding. He also contends that the BIA failed to consider
independent corroborative evidence. On appeal, Burinyuy does not
challenge the BIA’s determination that he was not eligible for protection
under the CAT or that he was not entitled to a remand for the immigration
judge (IJ) to consider new evidence. He has therefore abandoned these
claims. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
We review the BIA’s decision, but we consider the IJ’s decision only
to the extent that it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224
(5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings, including an adverse credibility
determination, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Avelar-Oliva v. Barr,
954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020).
Despite Burinyuy’s assertions to the contrary, the IJ’s determination
is supported by specific reasons based on the evidence presented, and under
the totality of the circumstances, it is substantially reasonable. Suate-
Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1060 (5th Cir. 2020). The adverse credibility
determination was supported by “specific and cogent reasons,” so the record
does not compel a finding that Burinyuy was credible or that no reasonable
factfinder could have made an adverse credibility finding. See Zhang v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). The lack of credible evidence
therefore precludes Burinyuy from bearing his burden of proof for asylum
and withholding of removal. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658 (5th Cir.
2012).
Burinyuy also failed to present sufficient corroborative evidence to
overcome the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. He claims that he did
not need to provide corroborative evidence because his claim relied on
personal experiences not subject to verification. We have explicitly held,
2
Case: 19-60823 Document: 00515744762 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/15/2021
No. 19-60823
however, that the failure to provide reasonably available corroborative
evidence, even when the applicant is credible, is grounds for denying an
application for asylum and for withholding of removal. Avelar-Oliva, 954
F.3d at 764. Moreover, the facts that Burinyuy proceeded pro se and was
detained did not excuse him from the requirement to provide reasonably
available corroborative evidence. See Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 587-
88 (5th Cir. 2011).
Burinyuy also claims that the October 2017 rally was nationwide and
that he had friends at both the rally and the September 2018 meeting. It was
therefore reasonable for the IJ to expect additional corroboration in the form
of news reports or affidavits from other participants. See Avelar-Oliva, 954
F.3d at 769.
Burinyuy next contends that the BIA committed legal error by failing
to consider independent corroborative evidence regarding the Cameroonian
government’s treatment of political opponents. Evidence of those facts was
not presented to the IJ, so the BIA cannot consider such new evidence on
appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i); Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, 612 F.3d
400, 410 n.9 (5th Cir. 2010).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.
3