IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60820

Summary Calendar

MIHAIL CALOS; LIUDMILA SOLOMITAKAIA,

Petitioners

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 853 286

BIA No. A200 853 287

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mihail Calos and his wife Liudmila Solomitakaia, natives of the Soviet 

Union and citizens of Moldova, seek review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) 

decision denying Calos’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60820 Document: 00513435410 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2016
No. 14-60820

2

Calos did not raise his CAT claim in his appellate brief before the BIA. 

Thus, the claim is unexhausted, and we lack jurisdiction to consider Calos’s 

claim for protection under the CAT. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. 

Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001). 

The BIA and the IJ 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.” Wang v. 

Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted) (emphasis in original). The inconsistency need not go to the 

heart of the case. Id. at 537. A credibility finding is a finding of fact that is 

reviewed for substantial evidence. Id. at 538-39. Therefore, we will defer to a 

credibility ruling “unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that 

no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Id. 

at 538 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Calos has not demonstrated that the record as a whole compels a 

conclusion that the adverse credibility finding was erroneous. See id. He 

points to no testimony or other evidence that would compel a reversal of the 

agency’s determination that the implausibility of his claims of past persecution 

and his fear of future persecution on account of his Roma ethnicity or political 

opinion was fatal to his claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (in making 

credibility determination, trier of fact to consider, among other things, the 

inherent plausibility of the applicant’s account). Given the adverse credibility 

ruling, Calos did not demonstrate that he was entitled to asylum or statutory 

withholding of removal. See Chun v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).

Because the credibility determinations of the IJ and BIA withstand 

review, the decision to deny Calos and his wife relief is supported by 

substantial evidence. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 

 Case: 14-60820 Document: 00513435410 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2016
No. 14-60820

3

2005). Therefore, it is unnecessary to address the agency’s alternative findings

concerning failure to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future 

persecution.

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

 Case: 14-60820 Document: 00513435410 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2016