United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60720

Summary Calendar

Kelley Mbi Anchieweh Alvine, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A213 327 529

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Kelley Mbi Anchieweh Alvine, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 

petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) affirming the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Through 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 14, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60720 Document: 00516130102 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2021
No. 20-60720

2

counsel, she asserts that the IJ “cherry pick[ed] minor inconsistencies” to 

reach an adverse credibility finding. Her argument lacks merit as the 

factfinder may rely on any inconsistencies in making a credibility 

determination “as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that 

an asylum applicant is not credible.” See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 

763-64 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 

2009)); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The BIA supported its determination 

with specific reasons based on the record, including: (1) her nonresponsive 

answers to certain questions and her poor demeanor; (2) inconsistencies 

concerning the treatment she received at the hospital; and (3) inconsistencies 

concerning her work history. Anchieweh Alvine has not explained the 

inconsistencies or shown that based on the “totality of the circumstances, it 

is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility 

ruling.” See Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at 767 (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Therefore, the BIA’s adverse credibility determination is 

supported by substantial evidence. See id.; Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d at 538-

39. The adverse credibility determination is fatal to her claims as the factual 

basis for her claims was the same and the denial of relief turned on the 

assessment of her credibility. See Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1061 

(5th Cir. 2020); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994).

Next, Anchieweh Alvine argues that the BIA erred by determining 

that she was not eligible for asylum as a member of the particular social group 

of indigenous people of Southern Cameroon where the IJ did not make an 

adverse credibility finding or an explicit finding as to this claim. The BIA 

specifically determined that she waived this issue by not presenting it to the 

IJ and that this issue was moot because it affirmed the adverse credibility 

determination. Because this claim was not presented to the IJ and the BIA 

declined to review the claim, Anchieweh Alvine failed to exhaust it, and, 

thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1);

Case: 20-60720 Document: 00516130102 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2021
No. 20-60720

3

Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145, 151-53 (5th Cir. 2019); Omari v. 

Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009).

Finally, Anchieweh Alvine asserts that the third country transit bar 

applied by the IJ has been overturned. We review only the BIA’s decision 

“unless the IJ’s decision has some impact on” that decision. Wang, 569 F.3d 

at 536. We may review the IJ’s findings and conclusions if the BIA adopts 

them. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the BIA 

did not adopt the IJ’s application of the third country transit bar, this part of 

the IJ’s decision is not before this court, and therefore we need not consider 

Anchieweh Alvine’s contentions on the issue. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536.

The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in 

part. 

Case: 20-60720 Document: 00516130102 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/14/2021