Mohamednoor Aden Muhumed v. Loretta Lynch

Case: 14-60669 Document: 00513161199 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-60669
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 19, 2015
MOHAMEDNOOR ADEN MUHUMED,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Petitioner
v.
LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 181 675
Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Petitioner Mohamednoor Aden Muhumed, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s
(IJ) decision denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA agreed with the
IJ that Muhumed had not credibly established his claims for relief. Muhumed
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-60669 Document: 00513161199 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2015
No. 14-60669
urges that the adverse credibility finding was erroneous, arguing that
inconsistencies result from misunderstandings and confusion.
We “review only the BIA’s decision, . . . unless the IJ’s decision has some
impact on” that decision. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009).
Factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, and
legal questions are reviewed de novo. Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584
(5th Cir. 2011). Under the substantial evidence standard, the petitioner must
show that “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
reach” a conclusion contrary to the petitioner’s position. Orellana-Monson v.
Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
An adverse credibility determination may be supported by “any
inconsistency or omission . . . as long as the totality of the circumstances
establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 538
(5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It is not plain
from our review of the record as a whole that no reasonable factfinder would
have made the same adverse credibility ruling. See id.
Muhumed fails to show that he is entitled to relief in the form of asylum,
so he cannot establish entitlement to withholding of removal, which has a
higher burden. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012). And,
because his testimony was not found credible, Muhumed has failed to show
that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to
Ethiopia. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005).
Muhumed’s petition for review is DENIED.
2