Hu v. Garland

Case: 23-60155 Document: 00516878525 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 23-60155
August 30, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Yu Deng Hu,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A215 759 368
______________________________
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Yu Deng Hu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal
from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) finding him not credible, ordering
him removed, and denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60155 Document: 00516878525 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2023
No. 23-60155
We review the BIA’s opinion and consider the IJ’s decision only
insofar as it influences the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir.
2018). Because the BIA’s determinations that Hu was incredible and
ineligible for CAT relief are reviewed for substantial evidence, we should not
disturb them unless the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion. Singh,
880 F.3d at 224–25; Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
Hu’s general arguments that any discrepancies arising amongst his
evidence were trivial and that he provided reasonable explanations for them
do not meet the substantial evidence standard. See Singh, 880 F.3d at
224–25; see also Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 594 (5th Cir. 2020).
Because the adverse credibility finding suffices to deny Hu’s claims for
asylum and withholding, we decline to consider his remaining arguments
concerning this form of relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)
(per curiam); Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 597; Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th
Cir. 1994).
Insofar as he relies upon new evidence in support of his CAT
argument, we decline to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A);
Ramchandani v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 337, 339 n.1 (5th Cir. 2005). His
arguments based on record evidence do not compel the conclusion that he
more likely than not will be tortured if repatriated. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at
344; Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017). The petition for
review is DENIED.
2