IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60434

Summary Calendar

JHABIR THAPA,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 887 003

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jhabir Thapa petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his requests for asylum, withholding of 

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

immigration judge (IJ) rendered an adverse credibility finding, giving

numerous specific and cogent reasons in support thereof. See Zhang v. 

Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). 

* 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

May 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60434 Document: 00513042395 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2015
No. 14-60434

We review only the BIA’s decision, “unless the IJ’s decision has some 

impact on the BIA’s decision.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 

2009). Here, because the BIA upheld the IJ’s decision based on the latter’s 

credibility determination, we may review the decisions of both the BIA and the 

IJ. See id.; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). We review the 

factual determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of 

removal, or relief under the CAT under the substantial-evidence standard. See 

Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Thapa has not pointed to any evidence that goes beyond merely 

supporting his interpretation of the inconsistencies and compels a contrary 

credibility conclusion. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th 

Cir. 2012). His claims for relief are based on the same evidence that the BIA 

found lacking in credibility, and he has not shown that, under “the totality of 

the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such 

an adverse credibility ruling.” See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538 (quoting Lin v. 

Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam)) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). The IJ and the BIA’s decision that Thapa was not entitled to 

asylum because he had not provided credible evidence of either past 

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution is supported by 

substantial evidence. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518. It therefore 

follows that he necessarily cannot establish an entitlement to withholding of 

removal or relief under the CAT, both of which require a higher burden. See

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

Thapa assigns error to the IJ’s determination that his asylum 

application was untimely. The BIA, however, declined to address this finding; 

therefore, we do not consider it. See Efe, 293 F.3d at 903. We lack jurisdiction 

to entertain his unexhausted claim that he was not afforded the opportunity 

2

 Case: 14-60434 Document: 00513042395 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2015
No. 14-60434

before the IJ to reconcile the contradiction in his testimony and his father’s 

letter regarding whether he suffered physical or mental torture when 

kidnapped. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001); 

Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Insofar as 

Thapa argues that the BIA erroneously made an adverse credibility 

determination based on the contents of his father’s letter concerning Thapa’s 

kidnapping, the BIA is permitted to review a credibility determination on facts 

already in the record, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i), and the IJ had already noted 

that the letter from Thapa’s father was vague and inconsistent with Thapa’s 

account.

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

3

 Case: 14-60434 Document: 00513042395 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/13/2015