Mbah v. Garland

Case: 20-61066 Document: 00516121822 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 8, 2021
No. 20-61066
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Kennedy Teboh Mbah,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A203 600 851
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Kennedy Teboh Mbah, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for
review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his
appeal from the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He challenges the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-61066 Document: 00516121822 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2021
No. 20-61066
BIA’s decision that he lacked credibility and argues that he demonstrated
that he is entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the CAT. He has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel.
We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s
decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d
220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings, including an adverse credibility
determination, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Avelar-Oliva v. Barr,
954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020).
Despite Mbah’s assertions to the contrary, the immigration judge’s
adverse credibility determination was supported by specific reasons based on
the evidence presented and was, under the totality of the circumstances,
substantially reasonable. See Singh, 880 F.3d 225-26. Because the adverse
credibility determination was supported by “specific and cogent reasons,”
the record does not compel a finding that Mbah was credible or that no
reasonable factfinder could have made an adverse credibility finding. See
Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the lack
of credible evidence precluded Mbah from meeting his burden of proof for
asylum and withholding of removal. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658
(5th Cir. 2012).
To establish entitlement to relief under the CAT, an alien must prove
that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured with the consent or
acquiescence of public officials if he returns to the particular country in
question. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2) and 1208.18(a)(1). Because Mbah has
failed to identify any “independent, non-testimonial evidence going to the
likelihood of torture,” his lack of credible testimony precludes him from
meeting his burden for protection under the CAT. See Arulnanthy v.
Garland, No. 19-60760,___ F.4th ___, 2021 WL 5174379, at *7 (5th Cir.
Nov. 8, 2021).
2
Case: 20-61066 Document: 00516121822 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/08/2021
No. 20-61066
Based upon the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED and the
motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
3