IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60040

Summary Calendar

KIBROM BERAKI,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A088 789 732

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kibrom Beraki, a native and citizen of Eritrea, applied for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

(CAT). He asserted that, if he returned to Eritrea, he would be subject to 

persecution on account of his religion, his political opinion, and his desertion 

of the military. The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief, and the BIA 

dismissed Beraki’s appeal. Beraki petitioned this court to review the BIA’s 

 

* 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

February 16, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60040 Document: 00514350157 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
No. 17-60040

2

order, but the matter was remanded to the agency, on the respondent’s motion,

to address the omission of a transcript from the administrative record. 

On remand, the IJ determined that the administrative record was 

complete and accurate. The BIA dismissed Beraki’s appeal, addressing both 

the IJ’s decision regarding the administrative record as well as the IJ’s denial 

of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. Beraki now 

petitions for review of the BIA’s decision. 

Administrative record

Beraki argues that the agency’s finding that the administrative record is 

complete and accurate is not supported by substantial evidence. He seeks a 

remand to the agency, contending that deficiencies in the administrative 

record violate his right to due process. 

We have authority to review only the BIA’s decision, but we “may 

consider the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced the BIA.” Cabral 

v. Holder, 632 F.3d 886, 889 (5th Cir. 2011). The factual findings of the BIA 

and the IJ are reviewed for substantial evidence, while questions of law are 

reviewed de novo. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007). The 

substantial evidence test requires that the decision be based on the evidence 

presented and that the decision be substantially reasonable. CarbajalGonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). “The [petitioner] has the 

burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable 

factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 

1134 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Beraki asserts that the administrative record is incomplete because it 

does not include a transcript of a hearing held on March 5, 2009. The record, 

however, provides substantial support for the agency’s determination that, 

although a hearing was scheduled, no hearing was actually held on the date in 

 Case: 17-60040 Document: 00514350157 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
No. 17-60040

3

question; accordingly, the agency’s factual finding will not be disturbed. See 

Zhu, 493 F.3d at 593. 

In addition to the contention that a transcript is missing, Beraki asserts 

that there are several other problems with the administrative record, including 

an undated transcript, the transcriber’s frequent use of the “undiscernible” in 

place of testimony, the unreliability of the transcriber’s certification, excessive 

duplication, and the omission of his previous petition for review and the brief 

he submitted to this court in connection with that petition. In order to 

establish his claim of a due process violation based on alleged deficiencies in 

the administrative record, Beraki must make a showing of prejudice; he has 

failed to make the requisite showing. See Bolvito v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 428, 

438 (5th Cir. 2008); Gonzales-Buitrago v. I.N.S., 1993 WL 391512, 4 (5th Cir. 

Sept. 24, 1993) (unpublished). 

Denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT

The IJ determined that Beraki’s claims for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the CAT failed because he was not a credible 

witness and because he failed to provide reasonably available corroborating 

evidence to support his claims of persecution in Eritrea. The BIA agreed with 

the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, noting that Beraki had not provided

other evidence to independently establish his claims. Beraki challenges the 

adverse credibility determination, as well as the determination that he did not 

provide corroborating evidence.

Credibility determinations are factual findings that are reviewed for 

substantial evidence. See Vidal v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 250, 254 (5th Cir. 2007). 

The IJ and BIA “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 

 Case: 17-60040 Document: 00514350157 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
No. 17-60040

4

531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) 

(emphasis in original). This court will defer to a “credibility determination 

unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable 

fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Beraki first asserts that the IJ erred in determining that there were 

inconsistencies between his testimony and that of his witness, Mr. Solomon. 

However, as the IJ noted, Beraki testified that he was detained in 2007 during 

the months of June, July, and August; that is inconsistent with Mr. Solomon’s 

testimony, deemed credible by the IJ, that Beraki worked at his home up until 

Mr. Solomon’s departure from Eritrea, which, as shown by Mr. Solomon’s 

passport, occurred on July 21, 2007. Beraki also contends that the IJ 

incorrectly determined that he gave internally inconsistent testimony. The IJ 

noted, however, that at a hearing held on October 21, 2008, Beraki testified 

that he worked for Mr. Solomon in March, April, and May of 2007. At a later 

hearing, Beraki testified that Mr. Solomon asked him in late April of 2007 to 

improve a design for his house and that he completed the task in one day and 

gave the new design to Mr. Solomon on May 3, 2007. Beraki also testified that 

the design job was the only work he did for Mr. Solomon. ROA.461. In view of 

the inconsistencies discussed above, as well as other testimonial 

inconsistencies discussed by the BIA that Beraki does not challenge, we

conclude that the agency’s adverse credibility determination as to Beraki is 

supported by substantial evidence. See Vidal, 491 F.3d at 254.1

 

1 Beraki also contends that the IJ erred in determining that he changed his story; 

however, in his brief he does not specify the testimony at issue, or provide a record citation 

to the relevant testimony. Beraki’s argument on this point is inadequately briefed, and it is 

therefore considered abandoned. See Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 589 (5th Cir. 2011). 

 Case: 17-60040 Document: 00514350157 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
No. 17-60040

5

Beraki asserts that the IJ and the BIA erred in concluding that he should 

have provided corroborating evidence from family members and friends to 

support his claims. He argues that he was unable to provide such evidence due 

to his long journey from Eritrea to the United States, which took him through 

several countries. 

“[A]pplicants can be required to provide reasonably obtainable 

corroborating evidence even when their testimony is credible.” Yang v. Holder,

664 F.3d 580, 587 (5th Cir. 2011). We may not reverse the trier of fact’s 

determination that corroborating evidence was available unless a reasonable 

trier of fact would be compelled to conclude otherwise. Id. 

The record reflects that Beraki reached the United States in April 2008, 

and he was represented by counsel during his proceedings before the 

immigration court, stretching back to June 4, 2008. He was able to obtain a 

letter, dated May 30, 2008, supporting his contention that he was a member of 

a Pentecostal church in Eritrea. Because the evidence does not compel a 

contrary conclusion, we will not disturb the agency’s determination that Beraki 

failed to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence. See id. 

Finally, Beraki contends that he established an entitlement to asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. In addition to his testimony, 

which, as discussed above, was determined to lack credibility, he relies on 

reports as to the conditions in Eritrea. The agency’s determination that Beraki 

is not entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT is 

reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th 

Cir. 2005). 

A grant of asylum is discretionary, and to be eligible an applicant must

be unable or unwilling to return to his home country because of “persecution 

or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

 Case: 17-60040 Document: 00514350157 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
No. 17-60040

6

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(42)(A). An applicant demonstrates a well-founded fear of 

persecution by showing “a subjective fear of persecution” that is “objectively 

reasonable.” Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2001). If 

past persecution is established, then the alien is entitled to a rebuttable 

presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 208.13(b)(1).

A claim for withholding of removal does not require proof of subjective 

fear. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. However, “[w]ithholding of removal is a 

higher standard than asylum.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 

2002). An applicant for withholding of removal has the burden of showing that 

it is “more likely than not” that his life or freedom would be threatened by 

persecution on account of one of the five categories mentioned under asylum. 

Id. 

Because Beraki provided no corroborating evidence to support his claims 

of past persecution, he failed to establish past persecution given the agency’s 

adverse credibility determination. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 657 (5th 

Cir. 2012). As to Beraki’s claims of feared future persecution on grounds of 

religion, political opinion, and military desertion, only Beraki’s assertion that 

he was a member of the Pentecostal church has any record support aside from 

his testimony. However, the country reports on which Beraki relies establish 

nothing more than a speculative fear of persecution based on religion; the 

record does not compel a conclusion that Beraki has shown “a subjective fear 

of persecution” that is “objectively reasonable,” so as to be eligible for asylum. 

Lopez-Gomez, 263 F.3d at 445. Because he has not shown an entitlement to 

asylum, Beraki cannot establish an entitlement to withholding of removal. See

Dayo, 687 F.3d at 658-59. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence 

 Case: 17-60040 Document: 00514350157 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
No. 17-60040

7

supports the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See Zhang, 

432 F.3d at 344.

In order to receive protection under the CAT, an applicant must show 

that it is “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if removed to his 

home country by, or with the acquiescence of, government officials acting under 

the color of law. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Hakim v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151, 

155 (5th Cir. 2010). Beraki relies on his testimony and the Department of 

State’s country report in an attempt to establish his CAT claim, but he fails to 

make the necessary showing. See Hakim, 628 F.3d at 155-57. We conclude 

that substantial evidence supports the denial of Beraki’s claim for protection 

under the CAT. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

 Case: 17-60040 Document: 00514350157 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/16/2018