Sunesara v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 23-60026 Document: 00516841825 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-60026
FILED
August 1, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Rizwan Rahim Bhai Sunesara,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A200 945 187
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Rizwan Rahim Bhai Sunesara, a native and citizen of India, petitions
this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordering
him removed, finding him not credible, and denying his application for
_____________________
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 23-60026 Document: 00516841825 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2023
No. 23-60026
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). Because the BIA’s determinations concerning credibility
and CAT relief are reviewed for substantial evidence, we will not disturb
them unless the evidence “compel[s]” a contrary conclusion. Singh v.
Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224-25 (5th Cir. 2018). Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
Sunesara fails to address, and thus abandons any challenge he may
have had to, the BIA’s determination that he had not shown he was part of
the Mendez Rojas 1 class and his asylum application was thus statutorily
barred. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). His
general argument that the inconsistencies amongst his testimony, credible
fear interview, applications and statements were minor and concerned
temporally remote events does not show that the evidence compels a
conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether he was credible.
See Singh, 880 F.3d at 224-25; see Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th
Cir. 2020). The adverse credibility finding, standing alone, suffices to deny
his withholding claim. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994);
Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597-98 (5th Cir. 2021). We thus decline
to consider his remaining arguments concerning this form of relief. See INS
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam). He fails to brief, and has
thus abandoned any challenge he may have had to, the BIA’s rejection of his
CAT claim. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833. Finally, although he mentions due
process in connection with the denial of a continuance, he raises no
arguments related to this concept and thus has not raised a viable due process
claim. See id.; Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). The petition for review is
DENIED.
_____________________
1
Mendez Rojas v. Johnson, 305 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (W.D. Wash. 2018).
2