United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60165

Summary Calendar

Amdiya Adamou, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A216 713 072

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Amdiya Amadou, a native and citizen of Niger, petitions for review of 

a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal 

from a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) concluding that she was 

ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

June 2, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60165 Document: 00516342088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2022
No. 21-60165

2

Convention Against Torture (CAT). She challenges the BIA’s conclusion 

that she has not shown eligibility for asylum because she failed to show that 

she suffered past persecution or has a well-founded, objective fear of future 

persecution because of her sexual orientation as a lesbian. 

We review the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s decision to the extent it 

influenced the BIA. See Okpala v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 965, 968-69 (5th Cir. 

2018). We ask only whether the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial 

evidence and not based on an error of law. See id.; Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 

299, 305 (5th Cir. 1997).

We need not address Adamou’s assertion that she belongs to a 

particular social group because the IJ assumed that she did but based the 

decision on the lack of a showing of past or likely future persecution. 

Adamou’s conclusional assertions do not show that substantial evidence 

compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether she 

showed past persecution. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 

(5th Cir. 2008); see also Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187-88 n.4 (5th Cir. 

2004). 

By asserting that her sexual “behavior is institutionally criminalized 

under Sharia law” Amadou invites this court to conflate Sharia law with the 

law of Niger. However, she did not submit to the IJ any documents about 

Sharia law, let alone Sharia law in Niger. Moreover, there was objective 

evidence that, while homophobia and anti-gay discrimination are prevalent 

in Niger, the law of Niger does not criminalize sexual activity between adults 

of the same sex, and Adamou admitted that she did not seek help from 

governmental authorities after she was beaten by her then-partner’s father. 

The record thus fails to compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s that she 

has not shown that the government of Niger is unable or unwilling to help 

her.

Case: 21-60165 Document: 00516342088 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2022
No. 21-60165

3

Because Adamou does not show the requisite likelihood of 

persecution to establish eligibility for asylum, she cannot make the more 

difficult showing of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 

293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). We lack jurisdiction to review her 

unexhausted CAT claim. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 

2009); see also Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F. 4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 

2022). 

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and 

DISMISSED in part.

Case: 21-60165 Document: 00516342088 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/02/2022