IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60820

Summary Calendar

YAPO PAUL ADON, also known as Yapo Adon, also known as Yapo P. Adon,

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. A096 516 828

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Yapo Paul Adon petitions for review of the decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of 

withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of 

removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary 

departure. Before addressing the merits of Adon’s petition for review, we 

analyze several jurisdictional questions.

* 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 25, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60820 Document: 00512782445 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/25/2014
No. 13-60820

Adon’s petition for review, postmarked within the 30-day period, was 

timely filed and thus vests us with jurisdiction over his petition for review. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); FED. R. APP. P. 25(a)(2)(C). We lack jurisdiction, though,

to consider Adon’s unexhausted claims that he was entitled to asylum, 

withholding of removal under the CAT, and voluntary departure; that he was

deprived of due process during the immigration proceeding; that he was 

deprived of effective assistance of counsel during the immigration proceeding; 

and, regarding cancellation of removal, that the IJ failed to consider evidence 

and that the BIA erroneously determined he had been convicted of an 

aggravated felony. See § 1252(d)(1); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319 (5th 

Cir. 2009). Finally, Adon’s disagreement with the IJ’s discretionary decision 

not to grant him cancellation of removal does not amount to a question of law 

or constitutional claim that is sufficient to vest us with jurisdiction. See

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (a)(2)(D); Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007). 

His petition for review is therefore dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction.

Turning to the merits of Adon’s petition for review, we decline to review 

the adverse credibility determination because substantial evidence supports 

the BIA’s and IJ’s finding that Adon was not entitled to withholding of removal. 

See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905-06 (5th Cir. 2002). Adon claimed that he 

feared he would be harmed if he returned to the Ivory Coast due to his political 

opinion, religion, and membership in a particular social group. Specifically, 

he would be identified by the rebels in power as an Akan Christian and union 

member whom the rebels considered to be supporters of the former regime. 

Although Adon testified that his mother, sister, and brother-in-law were 

attacked by the rebels, whether rebels were involved in these criminal acts was 

based solely on his speculation. Accordingly, he failed to show that it is more 

2

 Case: 13-60820 Document: 00512782445 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/25/2014
No. 13-60820

likely than not that he will be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See

8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2). 

We cannot consider the evidence attached to Adon’s brief that was not 

made part of the administrative record. See § 1252(b)(4)(A). Adon does not 

address the BIA’s stated reasons for refusing to consider whether he had 

suffered past persecution or would be persecuted on account of his membership 

in a particular social group, thereby abandoning review of these issues. See 

Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). His petition for review 

is therefore denied in part.

Last, we turn to Adon’s pending motions. His motion for appointment of 

counsel is denied. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). 

His incorporated motions for a stay of removal and release on bond or parole 

are denied as moot. His incorporated motion to strike the respondent’s brief is 

denied, as the respondent has corrected a prior deficiency. His incorporated 

motion to remand for consideration of new evidence is denied because we

cannot grant him such relief. See § 1252(b)(4)(A); Kane v. Holder, 581 F.3d 

231, 242 (5th Cir. 2009).

Petition for review DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part for lack of 

jurisdiction. Motions DENIED.

3

 Case: 13-60820 Document: 00512782445 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/25/2014