IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60671

Summary Calendar 

WAEL NIAZY ALRASHIDI, 

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. A206 118 912

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Wael Niazy Alrashidi is a citizen of Egypt who entered the U.S. as a nonimmigrant, J-1 exchange visitor and stayed in the U.S. beyond the authorized 

period. He was subsequently charged as being removable on this basis. Now, 

he petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) upholding the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) determination that he 

was not entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under 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

September 29, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60671 Document: 00514176514 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2017
No. 16-60671

2 

Convention Against Torture (CAT) because, inter alia, he was not credible. On 

appeal, Alrashidi contends that the IJ violated his due process rights by

aggressively questioning him during his immigration hearings. He also argues 

that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s findings on his credibility. 

We review only the decision of the BIA but will consider the IJ’s decision 

if it influenced the determination of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 

593 (5th Cir. 2007). We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial 

evidence. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Under this 

standard, reversal is improper unless we decide “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 and citation 

omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 

We review Alrashidi’s constitutional claims de novo. See Sattani v. 

Holder, 749 F.3d 368, 370 (5th Cir. 2014). As the BIA concluded, the record 

reveals that the IJ appropriately asked questions in order to fully develop the 

record. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052-53 & n.1 (5th Cir. 

1986). Moreover, the questions asked by the IJ did not preclude Alrashidi from 

presenting further testimony or evidence concerning his claims and did not 

“substantially prejudice” him. Id. at 1052; see Wang, 569 F.3d at 541 (rejecting 

similar due process claim).

An adverse credibility determination may be supported by any 

inconsistency or omission, provided that the totality of the circumstances 

establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible. Wang, 569 F.3d at 538-

39. Our review of the record as a whole shows that the evidence does not 

compel a conclusion contrary to that reached by the IJ and BIA on the issue 

whether Alrashidi was credible. See id. at 537-39. Because Alrashidi has not 

presented credible evidence showing that he is entitled to asylum, he has not 

 Case: 16-60671 Document: 00514176514 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2017
No. 16-60671

3 

shown that he is entitled to withholding of removal or relief under the CAT. 

See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 659 (5th Cir. 2012). Consequently, his 

petition for review is DENIED. 

 Case: 16-60671 Document: 00514176514 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2017