eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-03

Chhun v. Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 21-60763        Document: 00516695917             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/31/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-60763                                   FILED
Summary Calendar                            March 31, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Channy Chhun,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A216 855 963
Before Richman, Chief Judge, Stewart, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Channy Chhun, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal
from a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Because his numerous due process issues were not
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60763       Document: 00516695917          Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 21-60763
raised before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), we lack jurisdiction
to consider them. See Roy v. Ashcroft,
    389 F.3d 132
    , 137 (5th Cir. 2004) (per
curiam); see also Martinez-Guevara v. Garland,
    27 F.4th 353
    , 360 (5th Cir.
2022).
We review the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence. See Cardona-
Franco v. Garland,
    35 F.4th 359
    , 363 (5th Cir. 2022); Zhang v. Gonzales,
    432 F.3d 339
    , 344 (5th Cir. 2005). We consider the BIA’s decision only insofar
as it influenced that of the IJ. See Singh v. Sessions,
    880 F.3d 220
    , 224 (5th
Cir. 2018). The BIA’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
“specific and cogent reasons derived from the record,” Zhang,
    432 F.3d at 344
     (citations omitted), and consideration of the record as a whole does not
show that “no reasonable fact-finder” could make such a determination,
Singh,
    880 F.3d at 225
     (citation omitted); see also
    id. at 224
    . Additionally, the
record does not compel a contrary conclusion to that of the BIA on the issue
whether Chhun failed to demonstrate that he more likely than not would be
tortured if repatriated. See Zhang,
    432 F.3d at 344
    ; Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch,
    794 F.3d 485
    , 493 (5th Cir. 2015). The petition for review is DENIED in
part and DISMISSED in part for want of jurisdiction.
2