### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60416 Summary Calendar

DO MUNG , Petitioner

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A089 470 806

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Do Mung, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. He argues that the immigration judge ( IJ ) exceeded the scope of the remand; that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction in light of Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2108 (2018); and that the record demonstrates that he suffered

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limite d circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 16, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60416 Document: 00515036379 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2019N o. 18

- 60416

2 past persecution, has a well

- founded fear of persec ution, and that he is unable to relocate within Burma. He also moves to supplement the record with a copy of the United States Department of State 2017 Human Rights Report on
Burma. Mung’s arguments regarding jurisdiction and past persecution are unexhau sted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) ; see also Omari v. Holder , 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009). Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider the m

. § 1252(d)(1). The Immigration and Nationality Act requires that this court “decide the petition [for revi ew] only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). Accordingly, Mung’s motion to supplement is denied. Mung’s claim that the IJ exceeded the scope of the remand is without merit. The BIA’s remand or der did not explicitly limit the scope of the IJ’s inquiry. Therefore, the remand was effective for the stated purpose, determining whether Mung had a well

- founded fear of persecution, and for consideration of all other matters the IJ deemed appropriate. See Matter of Patel , 16 I. & N. Dec. 600, 601 (BIA 1978); Bianco v. Holder , 624 F.3d 265, 274 (5th Cir. 2010)

. Finally, changes in country conditions, namely, the rise to power of the

pro
- democracy political party he supported, make it unlikely that he w ould be forced to serve a 25

- year sentence for engaging in pro

- democracy activities critical of the prior military regime. As such, Mung has failed to demonstrate that the record compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he will be perse cuted because of his political beliefs if he returns to Burma. See Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002)

. Case: 18-60416 Document: 00515036379 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2019N o. 18

- 60416

3 In light of the foregoing Mung’s petition for review is DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jursidiction . His motion to supplement the record is DENIED. Case: 18-60416 Document: 00515036379 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2019