Hernandez-Chan v. Garland

Case: 22-60275 Document: 00516703840 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60275
FILED
April 6, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Maura Hernandez-Chan,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A203 715 645
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Petitioner Maura Hernandez-Chan petitions this court to review the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal
of a denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons that follow, we DENY her
petition.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60275 Document: 00516703840 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
No. 22-60275
We review the BIA’s decision; we consider the Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Nunez v. Sessions,
882 F.3d 499, 505 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). We will reverse the BIA’s
factual determinations “only if the evidence is so compelling that no
reasonable fact finder could fail to find the petitioner statutorily eligible for
relief.” Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 909 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation
omitted). In contrast, we “review[] the BIA’s legal determinations de novo.”
Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 288 (5th Cir. 2019).
Credibility determinations are factual findings that are reviewed for
substantial evidence. See Vidal v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 250, 254 (5th Cir. 2007).
“An adverse credibility determination prevents [a petitioner] from satisfying
her burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the CAT.” Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 772 (5th Cir.
2020). On the basis of numerous inconsistencies in the petitioner’s
testimony, the IJ in this case determined that Hernandez-Chan was not
credible. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination on the basis of the record.
We likewise agree. Although she presents explanations for the
inconsistencies in her testimony, none of Hernandez-Chan’s arguments
compels reversal. See id. at 768.
On this basis and for the reasons articulated by the BIA, we find no
error in the BIA’s decision and DENY the petition for review.
2