# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 61067 Summary Calendar

**Leonard Ataubo,**

Petitioner **,**

versus
**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A215 817 642

Before **Barksdale, Willett,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Leonard Ataubo , a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (BIA) dismissing h is appeal of

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 22, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-61067 Document: 00516211871 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2022No. 20

- 61067

2 an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) den ying h is application for asylum , withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In reviewing the BIA’s decision, the IJ ’s decision is considered only to th e extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions , 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Questions of law are reviewed de novo ; f actual findings , for substantial evidenc e

. Lopez

- Gomez v. Ashcroft , 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam )

. The injuries or threats received by Ataubo do not constitute the requisite persecution necessary for asylum

. See Eduard v. Ashcroft , 379 F.3d 182, 187

– 88 (5th Cir. 2004) ( noting “[n]either discrimination nor harassment ordinarily amounts to persecution under the INA” ) ; Tamara

Gomez v. Gonzales , 447 F.3d 343, 348

– 49 (5th Cir. 2006) ( finding petitioner that presented evidence of multiple threats “made a compelling case of persecution” )

. To the extent Ataubo summarily challenges denial of withholding of

remova l, his challenge is abandoned because he fails to brief it. E.g. , Hollis v. Lynch , 827 F.3d 436, 451 (5th Circ. 2016)

. To obtain CAT relief, applicant must show, inter alia , it is more likely than not that , if returned to his home country , he will be tortured with government acquiescence or involvement. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2) (prescribing eligibility for withholding of removal under CAT), 1208.18(a)(1) (defining torture as act performed with “consent or acquiescence of” public official). The BIA’s de cision that Ataubo failed to meet this standard is supported by substantial evidence.

Ataubo ’s other raised issues

— a due

- process claim and challenges regarding the persecution standard, his fear

- of

- future

- persecution claim, and application of the count ry

- condition report to his CAT claim

— are dismissed because they are unexhausted. See Omari v. Holder , 562 F.3d 314, 321 (5th Case: 20-61067 Document: 00516211871 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2022No. 20

- 61067

3 Cir. 2009) (emphasizing “ parties must fairly present an issue to the BIA to satisfy [18 U.S.C.] § 1252(d) ’ s exhaustion requirement ”)

. **DISMISSED IN PART**  ; **DENIED IN PART** 

. Case: 20-61067 Document: 00516211871 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2022