IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60532

Summary Calendar 

MARCO ANTONIO SALGUERA-DE TRINIDAD, 

Petitioner 

v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A206 228 758

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marco Antonio Salguera-de Trinidad is a citizen of Nicaragua who 

entered this country without being admitted or paroled and who was 

subsequently charged as being removable on this basis. Now, he petitions this 

court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

upholding the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) determination that he was not 

entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention 

 

* 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

September 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60532 Document: 00514165661 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2017
No. 16-60532

2 

Against Torture (CAT) because he was not credible. He contends that the IJ 

and BIA erred by considering a statement he gave to an immigration officer 

during a credible fear interview and by concluding that he should have 

provided corroborating affidavits from his siblings. He insists that he was 

credible. 

We “review only the BIA’s decision, unless the IJ’s decision has some 

impact on” that decision. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). 

We review the factual determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum, 

withholding of removal, or CAT relief under the substantial evidence standard. 

See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this 

standard, we may not reverse an immigration court’s factual findings unless 

“the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude 

against it.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 537.

An adverse credibility determination may be supported by “any 

inconsistency or omission,” provided that “the totality of the circumstances 

establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Id. at 538 (internal 

quotation marks, emphasis, and citation omitted). Our review of the record as 

a whole shows that the evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to that 

reached by the IJ and BIA on the issue whether Salguera-de Trinidad was 

credible. See id. at 537-40. 

To the extent Salguera-de Trinidad contends that the IJ erred by 

considering the statement given during his credible fear interview because the 

statement amounts to hearsay, this does not suffice to show error because 

hearsay is generally admissible in immigration proceedings. See Bustos-Torres 

v. INS, 898 F.2d 1053, 1056 (5th Cir. 1990). The IJ likewise did not err by 

noting the conspicuous absence of reasonably available corroborating evidence. 

 Case: 16-60532 Document: 00514165661 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2017
No. 16-60532

3 

See Wang, 569 F.3d at 539; Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 345 (5th Cir. 

2005). 

Our review of the record as a whole shows that the evidence does not 

compel a conclusion contrary to that reached by the IJ and BIA on the issue 

whether Salguera-de Trinidad was credible. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 537-40. 

Because Salguera-de Trinidad has not presented credible evidence showing 

that he is entitled to asylum, he has not shown that he is entitled to 

withholding of removal or relief under the CAT. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 

653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012). Consequently, his petition for review is DENIED. 

 Case: 16-60532 Document: 00514165661 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2017