Mtaza v. Garland

Case: 21-60046 Document: 00516419788 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-60046 August 4, 2022
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Amon Rweyemam Mtaza,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A087 156 435
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Amon Rweyemam Mtaza, a native and citizen of Tanzania, petitions
for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of his
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60046 Document: 00516419788 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2022
No. 21-60046
application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He does
not challenge the conclusions that he was statutorily ineligible for asylum and
for withholding of removal. Although Mtaza argues that the BIA violated his
due process rights by failing to consider whether he alleged a viable particular
social group, that he established he would be harmed on account of his
political opinion, that non-life-threatening violence may constitute
persecution, and that the Tanzanian government engaged in a pattern and
practice of persecution, he did not present these allegations to the BIA, and
we lack jurisdiction to consider the issues. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Roy
v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004).
We review the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, and we
consider the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced the BIA. Singh
v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Contrary to Mtaza’s assertion, the agency applied
the correct standard to his CAT claims. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2),
1208.18(a)(1). The BIA and IJ considered all four of Mtaza’s interactions
with Tanzanian police and secret service officials between 1998 and 2004 and
expressly stated that Mtaza’s claims for relief were based on allegations of
torture committed by these arms of the government rather than by third
parties with the acquiescence of governmental officials. Although Mtaza
contends that BIA and IJ failed to consider the evidence he presented
regarding the potential harms suffered by opponents of the ruling party in
Tanzania, the agency specifically referenced the evidence. Cf. Arulnanthy
v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 591-92 (5th Cir. 2021) (stating that the agency must
consider country conditions evidence in evaluating a CAT claim). Although
the IJ and BIA did not explicitly reference each piece of evidence presented
by Mtaza, the agency is not required to “address evidentiary minutiae or
write any lengthy exegesis” as long as the opinion reflects “meaningful
2
Case: 21-60046 Document: 00516419788 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2022
No. 21-60046
consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s
claims.” Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996).
Mtaza maintains that he has established that it is more likely than not
that he will be tortured if he returns to Tanzania, given his credible and
corroborated testimony of his past altercations with security and police, his
assertions that he would be tortured if he returned to Tanzania, and his
country conditions evidence. However, the BIA’s denial of relief was
“substantially reasonable” in light of the evidence and testimony presented.
Kane v. Holder, 581 F.3d 231, 236 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). Mtaza has not shown that the evidence compels a
different conclusion. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. Accordingly, his petition
for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. Mtaza’s motion
for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.
3