United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60235

Summary Calendar

____________

Lingling Zheng, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A209 383 986

______________________________

Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Lingling Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a 

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

and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her application for 

asylum and withholding of removal. The denial of asylum and withholding 

of removal are the only issues before us because Zheng does not challenge the 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 2, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60235 Document: 00517054342 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2024
No. 23-60235

2

BIA’s determination that she waived any challenge to denial of her request 

for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Soadjede v. 

Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). The BIA’s affirmance on the 

asylum and withholding of removal claims was based on its affirmance of the 

IJ’s adverse credibility determination. 

We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to 

the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th 

Cir. 2018). Because the BIA’s determinations that Zheng was incredible and 

ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal are reviewed for substantial 

evidence, we should not disturb them unless the evidence compels a contrary 

conclusion. Singh, 880 F.3d at 224-25; Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 

(5th Cir. 2017). 

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.” Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 

954 F.3d 757, 768 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Here, Zheng does not 

challenge the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s finding that Zheng failed to provide 

a persuasive explanation for the irreconcilable differences between her 

border interview and her testimony and asylum statement regarding her 

travels from China to the United States. She has thus forfeited review of that 

credibility finding. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833. Because the BIA may rely 

on any inconsistency and the totality of the circumstances support its 

determination that Zheng was not credible, Zheng’s challenge to the adverse 

credibility determination is unavailing. 

In sum, we uphold the adverse credibility determination, 

notwithstanding Zheng’s claim that the IJ made inconsistent credibility 

findings, which is meritless. See Singh, 880 F.3d at 225. That adverse 

Case: 23-60235 Document: 00517054342 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2024
No. 23-60235

3

credibility finding, in turn, suffices to deny Zheng’s claims for asylum and 

withholding of removal. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597 (5th 

Cir. 2021); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). There is thus no need 

to consider her remaining arguments concerning such relief, including her

arguments that the BIA erred in not addressing the merits of her claims and 

her challenge to the IJ’s admission of and reliance upon a magazine article 

over her objection. 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.”).

The petition for review is DENIED. 

Case: 23-60235 Document: 00517054342 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/02/2024