United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60386

Summary Calendar

Gipson Fernandes, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A216 075 024

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Haynes and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Gipson Fernandes, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review 

of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal 

from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

March 18, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60386 Document: 00515786619 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2021
No. 20-60386

2

Against Torture (CAT). We review factual findings for substantial evidence 

and legal conclusions de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 

(5th Cir. 2012). 

We have authority to review only the order of the BIA unless the 

underlying decision of the IJ influenced the BIA’s decision. Mikhael v. I.N.S., 

115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). We will review both decisions to the extent 

the BIA adopted the findings and conclusions of the IJ. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 

493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007).

Fernandes contends that the BIA erred by not conducting a 

meaningful analysis of the documentary evidence. The BIA “does not have 

to write an exegesis on every contention. What is required is merely that it 

consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to 

enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not 

merely reacted.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 908 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Here, as the IJ determined, the documentary evidence, read as a 

whole, showed instances of “random” and “isolated” adverse acts toward 

Christians at various times and in various locales in India. On appeal, the 

BIA determined that Fernandes had not shown error by the IJ because he had 

not pointed to evidence supporting the claim of a “pattern or practice . . . of 

persecution” that the IJ failed to consider. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)

(2021). Further, as the IJ noted, the documentary evidence showed that the 

laws of India protect freedom of religion. We conclude that Fernandes’s 

contention that the BIA failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of the 

documentary evidence lacks merit. See Efe, 293 F.3d at 908.

Fernandes’s own testimony established that he and his family openly 

practiced Catholicism and were never harmed. Further, his family members 

in India have continued to practice the Catholic faith, without incident, after 

Case: 20-60386 Document: 00515786619 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2021
No. 20-60386

3

Fernandes came to the United States. This weighs against a determination 

that Fernandes has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of 

his religion or his membership in a particular social group of Catholics in Goa, 

India. See Gonzalez-Soto v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 682, 683-84 (5th Cir. 2016)

(summary calendar) (per curiam). 

In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s 

determination that Fernandes failed to meet his burden of proof for asylum

because he did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 

Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 396 (5th Cir. 2020). As Fernandes failed to 

establish eligibility for asylum, he cannot prevail on his claim for withholding 

of removal. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012)

(summary calendar).

Fernandes also argues that the decisions of the IJ and the 

BIA regarding his claim for protection under the CAT are not supported by 

substantial evidence. For purposes of the CAT, “[t]orture is defined as any 

act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is 

intentionally inflicted . . . by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or 

acquiescence of, a public official . . . or other person acting in an official 

capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (2021). 

As the IJ determined, the record shows that the Indian government is 

engaged in ongoing efforts to curb extremist violence and has implemented 

laws to protect religious freedom. The IJ acknowledged that such efforts 

have not been entirely successful. But he determined that, given the 

government’s efforts, he could not conclude that the government would 

acquiesce in torture. Further, as the IJ noted, the evidence of record shows 

that Fernandes and his family have never been harmed in India, much less 

tortured. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the denial of 

Fernandes’s CAT claim is supported by substantial evidence. See Chen

Case: 20-60386 Document: 00515786619 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/18/2021
No. 20-60386

4

v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1139 (5th Cir. 2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) 

(2021).

* * *

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 20-60386 Document: 00515786619 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/18/2021