Asif Maknojiya v. Loretta Lynch

Case: 14-60417 Document: 00513058522 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 14-60417
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar May 28, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
ASIF RAHIM MAKNOJIYA, Clerk
Petitioner
v.
LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A200 944 497
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Asif Rahim Maknojiya, a native and citizen of India, entered this country
without authorization and was ordered removed. Maknojiya petitions this
court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
upholding the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) determination that he was not
entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT) because he was not credible. He argues that 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-60417 Document: 00513058522 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2015
No. 14-60417
explained many of the apparent discrepancies that were in his testimony and
that existed between his testimony and the written items. He also complains
that he was not given an opportunity to explain other items and that the IJ
failed to consider alternative explanations for the allegedly implausible events.
Finally, he insists that his testimony and his submitted documentation were
sufficient to support his request for relief.
Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, we review the
decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th
Cir. 2009). We review the factual determination that an alien is not eligible
for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief under the substantial
evidence standard. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
Under this standard, we may not reverse an immigration court’s factual
findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
could conclude against it.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 537.
An adverse credibility determination may be supported by “any
inconsistency or omission,” provided that “the totality of the circumstances
establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 538
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our review of the record as a
whole shows that the evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to that
reached by the IJ and BIA on the issue whether Maknojiya was credible. See
Wang, 569 F.3d at 537-38. Likewise, he has not shown that the remainder of
the record compels a conclusion that he has established that he is eligible for
asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT. See Chen, 470 F.3d
at 1134. Consequently, his petition for review is DENIED.
2