# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 r elief under the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be pu blished 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 August 3, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60537 Document: 00516418486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2022No. 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. N either the IJ
nor the BIA , however, was required to accept Asongafac’s explanations for the discrepancies, even if those explanatio ns were plausible. See Santos

Alvarado v. Barr , 967 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2020). T he BIA cited “specific and cogent reasons derived from the record” to support the adverse credibility determination. Singh , 880 F.3d at 22 5 ( quoting Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3 d 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.

T he 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 determinati on 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 Ca meroon. T he 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: 08/03/2022No. 21

- 60537

3 asylum and withholding of removal because, without credible testimony, Asongafac ca nnot 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