United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-60300

Summary Calendar

____________

Alex Noe Torres-Escamilla, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A209 231 964

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Alex Noe Torres-Escamilla, a native and citizen of Honduras,

petitions for review 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 

Against Torture (CAT). In dismissing the appeal, the BIA upheld the IJ’s 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 6, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60300 Document: 00516703639 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
No. 22-60300

2

decision: Torres’ testimony was not credible; and, alternatively, even if it 

was, he failed to show his eligibility for relief. Torres challenges the adverse 

credibility determination and maintains he established his eligibility for relief.

We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s decision only 

to the extent it affected that of the BIA. E.g., Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 

593 (5th Cir. 2007). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence; 

conclusions of law, de novo. E.g., id. at 594. The substantial-evidence 

standard applies to factual determinations that an alien is ineligible for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. E.g., Zhang v. 

Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under this standard, our court 

will reverse the BIA’s decision only when “the evidence compels a contrary 

conclusion”. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). “In 

other words, the alien must show that the evidence was so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id.

In determining credibility, the IJ “may rely on any inconsistency or 

omission”. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018) (citations 

omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). If the IJ determines the “totality of 

the circumstances” requires an adverse credibility finding, our court will 

defer to that finding so long as it is “supported by specific and cogent 

reasons”. Singh, 880 F.3d at 225 (citations omitted).

The BIA pointed to numerous inconsistencies and omissions upon 

which the IJ had relied in making its credibility determination, between 

Torres’ credible-fear interview and his testimony before the IJ. Most

notable, regarding Torres’ claimed fear of harm by gang members he claims 

targeted him for recruitment, Torres did not explain the inconsistency 

pertaining to whether the gang recruited him as a lookout/informant or to 

construct weapons. This discrepancy goesto the heart of his claim; therefore

it “easily constitute[s] substantial evidence to support an adverse credibility 

Case: 22-60300 Document: 00516703639 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
No. 22-60300

3

finding”. Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 593–94 (5th Cir. 2021). And, 

even where Torres attempts to explain other inconsistencies throughout his 

application process and testimony, such as when he was allegedly beaten by 

gang members, the record does not compel a determination that he was 

credible. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2017) (“Neither 

an IJ nor the BIA is required to accept a petitioner’s explanation for the plain 

inconsistencies in her story.” (citation omitted)); Zhu, 493 F.3d at 594 

(under substantial-evidence standard, our court reversesfactual findings only 

when “evidence compels us to do so”). Finally, to the extent he contends 

any discrepancies were because he was trying to protect his family in 

Honduras, that contention was not presented to the BIA; therefore, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider it. E.g., Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 

360 (5th Cir. 2022).

The adverse-credibility finding being proper, the evidence does not 

compel finding Torres was eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or 

CAT relief. E.g., Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763–70 (5th Cir. 2020)

(where petitioner’s testimony is incredible, failure to provide sufficient 

corroborating evidence may be “fatal to an alien’s application for relief”); 

Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907–08 (5th Cir. 2002) (CAT relief requires 

applicant show “it is more likely than not” he would be tortured).

DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

Case: 22-60300 Document: 00516703639 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2023