Pun v. Garland

Case: 20-60940 Document: 00516275058 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 11, 2022
No. 20-60940
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Jas Bahadur Pun,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 927 593
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jas Bahadur Pun, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions us for a
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding
the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on a negative credibility
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60940 Document: 00516275058 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2022
No. 20-60940
determination. He argues that there are explanations for some of the factors
outlined by the Immigration Judge (IJ) or that the findings were otherwise
improper. He also offers argument regarding the merits of his underlying
asylum claims.
This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’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). Under the substantial evidence standard, this court
may 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 do not find that the findings of the IJ were not based in the record.
There are credibility factors that are not argued by Pun, and these waived
factors are dispositive of the claim. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538
(5th Cir. 2009). However, the factors that are argued by Pun have a
foundation in the evidence and so the plausibility of an alternate finding can
lead to no relief. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2017).
Analysis of the asylum factors argued by Pun is unnecessary because this
claim cannot succeed without credible evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B);
Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). As Pun cannot prove his asylum
claim, his withholding arguments necessarily fail. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d
1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
We do not find that the country conditions evidence, as the only
evidence surviving the negative credibility determination, independently
proves Pun’s Convention Against Torture claim or remedy his credibility.
Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 2019).
DENIED.
2