IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60081

Summary Calendar

JEAN BUNGANGA MANSI,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A087 588 554

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jean Bunganga Mansi, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of 

Congo (DRC) petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) and 

denying him a remand. The IJ’s denial of Mansi’s requests for asylum, withholding 

of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) were grounded in 

an adverse credibility finding. The BIA concluded that this finding was not clearly 

erroneous and that Mansi had not shown entitlement to the requested relief. The 

* 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 4, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60081 Document: 00512521779 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2014
No. 13-60081

BIA also concluded that Mansi had not shown error in connection with the IJ’s 

decisions to exclude certain evidence and to dispense with closing arguments. 

Finally, the BIA denied his motion to remand, which was grounded in his challenge 

to the disputed evidentiary rulings.

Now, Mansi insists that he was credible and proved his entitlement to relief. 

We review the legal conclusions of the BIA and IJ de novo, and their factual findings

are reviewed for substantial evidence. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 594 (5th Cir. 

2006). Reversal under the latter standard is not warranted absent a showing “not 

only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence 

compels it.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Among the findings that we review for substantial 

evidence are the factual conclusions that an alien is not eligible for asylum, 

withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 

344 (5th Cir. 2005). We will defer to an immigration court’s credibility determination 

“unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable factfinder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 

538 (5th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record and the appellate briefs shows that this standard has 

not been met. Both the IJ and the BIA noted several material discrepancies betwixt 

Mansi’s testimony and his application for relief. The adverse credibility 

determination in this case is thus supported by specific reasons derived from the 

record. The evidence does not compel a conclusion that no reasonable factfinder could 

have found Mansi not to be credible. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538; Chen, 470 F.3d at

1134. To the extent Mansi argues otherwise, this argument is unavailing. 

Likewise unavailing are Mansi’s arguments concerning evidentiary rulings, 

closing arguments, and his motion to remand. When reviewing the BIA’s denial of a 

motion to remand, we apply “a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.” 

Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006). The remand was grounded in 

Mansi’s contention that certain evidence should not have been excluded and that 

closing arguments should have been permitted. “The test for admissibility of evidence 

2

 Case: 13-60081 Document: 00512521779 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2014
No. 13-60081

in a deportation proceeding is whether the evidence is probative and whether its use 

is fundamentally fair so as not to deprive the alien of due process of law.” BustosTorres v. INS, 898 F.2d 1053, 1055 (5th Cir. 1990); see also Bouchikhi v. Holder, 676 

F.3d 173, 180 (5th Cir. 2012). Mansi has not shown substantial prejudice arising 

from the challenged rulings. See Bouchikhi, 676 F.3d at 180. Furthermore, the 

exclusion of two documents was permissible under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c), which 

provides that the IJ “may set and extend time limits for the filing of applications and 

related documents.” 

In sum, Mansi has not shown that the BIA’s rulings were in error, nor has he 

shown that the BIA abused its discretion by denying him a remand. Consequently, 

his petition for review is DENIED. 

3

 Case: 13-60081 Document: 00512521779 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/04/2014