United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60537

Summary Calendar

Ferdinand Folebe Asongafac, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A213 186 543

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Ferdinand Folebe Asongafac is a native and citizen of Cameroon. He

petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

dismissing his appeal from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) concluding 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

August 3, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60537 Document: 00516418486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2022
No. 21-60537

2

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s decision and will 

consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Singh 

v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).

Asongafac attacks the various inconsistencies cited by the BIA in 

support of its affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Neither the IJ 

nor the BIA, however, was required to accept Asongafac’s explanations for 

the discrepancies, even if those explanations were plausible. See SantosAlvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2020). The BIA cited “specific 

and cogent reasons derived from the record” to support the adverse 

credibility determination. Singh, 880 F.3d at 225 (quoting Wang v. Holder,

569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009)). Asongafac has failed to demonstrate that 

it is clear from the totality of the circumstances that no reasonable factfinder 

could make an adverse credibility ruling in his case. Wang, 569 F.3d at 538-

40.

The record also reflects that the IJ and the BIA gave “meaningful 

consideration” to what Asongafac labels corroborating evidence. Cabrera v. 

Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 162 (5th Cir. 2018). He has not shown that the record 

compels this court to overturn the BIA’s determination to the extent it 

determined that he failed to present reasonably available corroborating 

evidence. See Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 587 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Asongafac also asserts that the agency failed to consider evidence of 

country conditions in Cameroon. The country reports do not “resolve the 

inconsistencies that the BIA found so troubling,” and Asongafac “has 

offered no explanation for how these materials corroborate, much less 

independently support, his claims.” Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 290 

(5th Cir. 2019). 

The IJ’s, as affirmed by the BIA, adverse credibility determination, 

which is supported by substantial evidence, is fatal to Asongafac’s claims for 

Case: 21-60537 Document: 00516418486 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2022
No. 21-60537

3

asylum and withholding of removal because, without credible testimony, 

Asongafac cannot establish the requisite subjective fear of future persecution. 

See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597 (5th Cir. 2021). Asongafac has 

abandoned his claim for protection under the CAT because he has not raised 

a challenge to the denial of that claim. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 

833 (5th Cir. 2003). 

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 21-60537 Document: 00516418486 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/03/2022