Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60545/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60545-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta Lynch, U. S. Attorney General
Respondent
Misikir Getachew Tesfaye
Petitioner

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60545

Summary Calendar

MISIKIR GETACHEW TESFAYE,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 679 429

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Misikir Getachew Tesfaye, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for 

review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing 

his appeal from 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, Tesfaye challenges 

the immigration judge’s finding that his testimony was not credible, but he 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 3, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60545 Document: 00513819607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2017
No. 15-60545

2

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). While he also challenges the finding that he did not establish 

his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, Tesfaye fails to show that 

“any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 

2006).

In addition, Tesfaye also 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.” 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B). Although Tesfaye challenges the denial of CAT protection on 

the ground that the ruling erroneously rests on an adverse credibility 

determination from the asylum context, the adverse credibility assessment 

here goes directly to the issue whether Tesfaye is likely to be tortured in 

Ethiopia. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907-08 (5th Cir. 2002). Tesfaye’s 

challenge to the denial of CAT protection fails because he does not show that 

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find that it is more likely 

than not that he would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. See § 1252(b)(4)(B); 

see Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005).

PETITION DENIED.

 Case: 15-60545 Document: 00513819607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2017