United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60171

Summary Calendar

____________

Tamaz Metreveli, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A203 787 667

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Tamaz Metreveli, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the denial of: 

asylum; withholding of removal; and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT). 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60171 Document: 00517025943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2024
No. 23-60171

2

Metreveli contends the BIA erred in declining to review the 

immigration judge’s (IJ) adverse-credibility determination. The BIA 

assumed without deciding that Metreveli’s testimony was credible but 

concluded on the merits that he did not qualify for asylum or withholding of 

removal because he failed to show past, or a well-founded fear of future,

persecution. (Metreveli has forfeited, for failure to brief, any challenge to the 

BIA’s conclusion that he waived his CAT claim. See, e.g., Jaco v. Garland, 

24 F.4th 395, 401 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining unbriefed issues are 

forfeited).)

Our court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s ruling 

only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 

536 (5th Cir. 2009). “We consider legal questions de novo, and we review 

the factual determination that an individual is not eligible for asylum or 

withholding of removal for substantial evidence.” Munoz-De Zelaya v. 

Garland, 80 F.4th 689, 693 (5th Cir. 2023). “Under the substantial evidence 

standard, reversal is improper unless we decide not only that the evidence 

supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.” Chen 

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

(citation omitted).

Because the BIA did not reach the merits of the IJ’s adverse-credibility 

ruling, the credibility issue is not properly before our court and will not be 

considered. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general 

rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 

decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”); Martinez-De 

Umana v. Garland, 82 F.4th 303, 309 n.3 (5th Cir. 2023) (rejecting 

consideration of issues unaddressed by BIA).

To qualify for asylum, Metreveli must show he is “unable or 

unwilling” to return to Georgia “because of persecution or a well-founded 

Case: 23-60171 Document: 00517025943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2024
No. 23-60171

3

fear of persecution on account of” a statutorily protected ground, such as 

political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 

F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir. 2018) (explaining statutory framework). A petitioner 

who establishes past persecution “is presumed to have a well-founded fear of 

future persecution”. Zhu v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 521, 528 n.6 (5th Cir. 2004). 

If petitioner cannot show past persecution, he must show a well-founded fear 

of future persecution by demonstrating “a subjective fear of persecution, and 

that fear must be objectively reasonable”. Chen, 470 F.3d at 1135 (citation 

omitted); see also Zhu, 382 F.3d at 528 n.6. 

Insofar as Metreveli challenges the BIA’s finding that he failed to 

demonstrate harm rising to the level of past persecution, he has not shown 

the evidence compels a contrary finding. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134

(outlining standard of review). The incident where Metreveli was held at 

gunpoint and beaten—combined with the multiple threats he received to 

support the Georgian Dream Party or leave the country—is insufficient to 

demonstrate past persecution. See Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 395–99 (5th 

Cir. 2020) (collecting cases and affirming BIA’s determination that repeated 

death threats and attack resulting in injuries requiring stitches did not 

amount to past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s 

finding that Metreveli’s fear of future persecution was not objectively 

reasonable. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1135 (outlining burden for well-founded 

fear of future persecution). His children remain in Georgia unharmed, and 

he was able to depart from, and return to, Georgia without incident during 

the claimed persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 193 (5th Cir. 

2004) (“[T]he reasonableness of an alien’s fear of persecution is reduced 

when his family remains in his native country unharmed for a long period of 

time after his departure”.); Ndulu v. Lynch, 643 F. App’x 345, 347–48 (5th 

Cir. 2016) (considering unobstructed departures and returns as evidence 

against well-founded fear of future persecution).

Case: 23-60171 Document: 00517025943 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/08/2024
No. 23-60171

4

Metreveli has not demonstrated eligibility for asylum and, therefore, 

has also failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See, e.g.,

Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2020) (“[O]ne who fails 

to show entitlement to asylum fails to show entitlement to withholding of 

removal”.).

DENIED.

Case: 23-60171 Document: 00517025943 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/08/2024