Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0782-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ibraahim Muhammad IBRO, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 16-60623 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed October 11, 2017
    Aaron Samuel Haas, Salmon & Haas, San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner
    Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Esq., Trial Attorney, Brooke Marie Maurer, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ibraahim Muhammad Ibro, a native and citizen of Ethiopia who entered the United States without admission or parole, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). With respect to his asylum and withholding-of-removal claims, Ibro challenges the immigration judge’s finding that his testimony was not credible, but he fails to show that it is plain from the totality of the circumstances that “no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The BIA found it unnecessary to review the merits of his claims apart from the-, adverse credibility finding, which was fatal to the claims. Likewise, we conclude that the denial of relief turned on the assessment of Ibro’s credibility. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994).

In addition, Ibro challenges the adverse credibility determination in the context of his CAT claim. Again, he has not shown that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5,4.