# United States Court of Appeals

f or 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* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determ ined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4.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 June 2, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60165 Document: 00516342088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2022No. 21

- 60165

2 Convention Against Torture (CAT). She challenges the BIA ’ s conclusion that s he 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 persecut ion 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 pers ecution. 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 preval ent 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 co mpel 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: 06/02/2022No. 21

- 60165

3 B ecause 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. Hol der , 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