United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 23-60208

Summary Calendar

____________

Seng Xiong, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A022 479 141

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Seng Xiong, a native and citizen of Laos, whose ethnicity is Hmong, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) upholding 

the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of protection under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT). The BIA determined, inter alia, that Xiong failed to 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 27, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60208 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2024
No. 23-60208

2

show the requisite individualized risk of torture for deferral of removal under 

the CAT.

Our court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision 

only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 

812, 815 (5th Cir. 2017). The BIA’s factual determination that an individual 

is not eligible for CAT protection is reviewed under the substantial-evidence 

standard. E.g., Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006)

(outlining standard). Under this standard, petitioner “has the burden of 

showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder 

could reach a contrary conclusion”. Id. Our court has jurisdiction to review 

the denial of CAT protection regardless of Xiong’s fraud convictions. See 

Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 579–81 (2020) (outlining jurisdictional 

framework for reviewing CAT-relief denials).

Xiong’s testimony that he would be immediately detained in Laos and 

suffer torture can reasonably be viewed as speculative. A reasonable 

factfinder could conclude, as the IJ and BIA did, that such testimony was 

insufficient to show he would more likely than not be tortured if removed to 

Laos. E.g., Morales, 860 F.3d at 818 (rejecting other “permissible view of the 

evidence” contention). Xiong’s documentary evidence also does not compel 

the conclusion he demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of torture. 

See id. (determining news articles and reports were too general to show 

likelihood of torture to applicant); Chen, 470 F.3d at 1140–41 (determining 

generalized reports about torture in detention centers did not compel 

conclusion that applicant would likely be detained and tortured). In the light 

of the record, Xiong fails to show the requisite evidence compelling a 

contrary conclusion. See Morales, 860 F.3d at 818; Chen, 470 F.3d at 1140–

41.

Case: 23-60208 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2024
No. 23-60208

3

Although Xiong also contends the denial of CAT protection based on 

insufficient evidence was reversible legal error, the contention is unavailing. 

Despite his phrasing the contention in legal terms, Xiong’s disagreement 

with the weighing of the evidence does not present a question of law. See, 

e.g., Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 255 (5th Cir. 2023) (rejecting 

petitioner’s attempt to rephrase contention as question of law). 

Finally, Xiong contends the BIA’s decision should be reversed 

because it conflicts with the Department of Homeland Security’s alleged 

conclusion that he should not be sent back to Laos. Xiong arguably forfeited 

this contention by inadequate briefing. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) 

(requiring brief to contain “contentions and the reasons for them, with 

citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant 

relies”). In any event, he fails to show evidence compelling a conclusion 

contrary to the BIA’s. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134.

DENIED.

Case: 23-60208 Document: 43-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/27/2024