Mbah v. Garland

Case: 20-60985 Document: 00516261866 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 31, 2022
No. 20-60985
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Cyprine Yunga Mbah,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A213 455 558
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Cyprine Yunga Mbah, a native and citizen of Cameroon, timely
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
The BIA upheld the Immigration Judge’s denial of his claims for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60985 Document: 00516261866 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2022
No. 20-60985
based on a negative credibility determination. He generally argues that the
credibility finding was not based on substantial evidence. He also offers
argument regarding his underlying asylum claims.
We review the Board’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 are reviewed for substantial
evidence and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v.
Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). This court will not overturn a
factual finding unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Martinez-Lopez
v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 769 (5th Cir. 2019).
We are not compelled to find that the credibility finding was
improperly made. The record shows that inconsistencies exist internally in
the testimony and between the testimony and the asylum application. An
Immigration Judge may rely on “any inconsistency or omission in making an
adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances
establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Wang v. Holder, 569
F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Additionally, the Immigration Judge is in the best position to assess
demeanor and nonresponsive answers. Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757,
772 (5th Cir. 2020). Without credible evidence we have no basis to consider
any of the other arguments Mbah raises regarding his asylum claims. Chun v.
INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).
DENIED.
2