United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60690

Summary Calendar

Santhasoruban Suresh, 

Petitioner,

versus

Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 352 912

Before Haynes, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Santhasoruban Suresh, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for 

review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing 

his appeal from the decision and order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying 

his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 8, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60690 Document: 00515769470 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2021
No. 19-60690

2

Torture (CAT) relief. We review the decision of the BIA and will consider 

the IJ’s underlying decision only to the extent that it influenced the BIA’s 

determination. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Suresh

does not substantively challenge the dismissal of his withholding of removal 

claim and has, therefore, abandoned any such challenge. See Soadjede v. 

Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

A petitioner fails to exhaust, and we lack jurisdiction to consider, 

issues that he has not first raised before the BIA. Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 

314, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2009). “[W]here the BIA’s decision itself results in a 

new issue and the BIA has an available and adequate means for addressing 

that issue, a party must first bring it to the BIA’s attention through a motion 

for reconsideration.” Id. at 320. That is, a petitioner must exhaust, by raising

in a motion for reconsideration, any challenge “stemming from the BIA’s act 

of decisionmaking [when the challenge is] one that neither party could have 

possibly raised prior to the BIA’s decision.” Id. at 320-21. Suresh failed to 

exhaust before the BIA, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider, his 

contentions that (1) the transcript of his Border Patrol interview should not 

weigh against his credibility because it was implausible, unreliable, and 

inaccurate, (2) the BIA failed to address a purportedly-raised claim for

asylum based upon his status as a failed asylum seeker, and (3) the BIA erred 

by denying CAT relief because it (a) failed to consider the claim 

independently and under the correct legal standard, and (b) improperly 

excluded from consideration his documentary evidence other than the 2017 

Department of State Human Rights Report. See id. at 318-21.

We review the dismissal of Suresh’s asylum claim under the 

substantial evidence standard. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th 

Cir. 2005). The determination that Suresh lacked credibility constitutes a

factual finding that we likewise review for substantial evidence. See Wang, 

569 F.3d at 536-40. Under this standard, we may not reverse unless Suresh

Case: 19-60690 Document: 00515769470 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2021
No. 19-60690

3

“show[s] that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder 

could conclude against it.” Id. at 537; see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

Although Suresh discounts, or offers self-serving explanations for, his 

contradictory statements regarding his birthplace and his parents’ 

whereabouts, the IJ and the BIA “may rely on any inconsistency or omission 

in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the 

circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Wang, 

569 F.3d at 538 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Suresh fails 

to show that the adverse credibility determination was unsupported by 

substantial evidence. See id. at 536-37.1

Given the adverse credibility determination and Suresh’s failure to 

submit documentary evidence beyond reports describing general country 

conditions in Sri Lanka, Suresh fails to show that the BIA’s denial of his 

asylum claim based upon his alleged past persecution was unsupported by 

substantial evidence. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 657-58 (5th Cir. 2012)

(holding that petitioner’s claim for asylum based on past persecution 

necessarily failed when his only evidence of such persecution was his 

discredited testimony). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s factual 

finding that, because Suresh lacked credibility and introduced no 

documentary evidence verifying his identity, he failed to establish that he is 

a Northern Province Tamil. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37. We are therefore 

not compelled to reverse the BIA’s determination that Suresh failed to 

establish a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his ethnicity and 

birthplace. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344.

1

 Because the BIA, having already determined that the IJ’s credibility 

determination was not clearly erroneous, merely cited the “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”

(false in one thing, false in all) doctrine as additional support for its determination, we need 

not address the arguments about this doctrine.

Case: 19-60690 Document: 00515769470 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2021
No. 19-60690

4

The petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in 

part. 

Case: 19-60690 Document: 00515769470 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/08/2021