IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60395

Summary Calendar

JOSE MARIA LICONA-ACOSTA,

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. A205 481 438

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Maria Licona-Acosta, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions 

this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision 

affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

(CAT). He contends that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of relief 

based on an adverse credibility determination because it was not supported by 

 

* 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 26, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60395 Document: 00514170807 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2017
No. 16-60395

2

the record. He also argues that the IJ did not consider his educational 

background, his nervousness when providing his prior statements, and 

translational issues causing inconsistencies.

Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, this court may review the 

decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 

(5th Cir. 2007). The BIA’s decision to uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility 

determination is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Morales 

v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2017). An adverse credibility 

determination “must be supported by specific and cogent reasons derived from 

the record.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). A court can rely on any inconsistency 

or omission to make an adverse credibility determination so long as the totality

of the circumstances shows the asylum applicant is not credible. Id. at 538; see 

Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 657 (5th Cir. 2012). We will defer to a “credibility 

determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no 

reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Wang, 

569 F.3d at 538.

The record does not compel a determination that Licona-Acosta was 

credible, and he has failed to show that, under the totality of the circumstances, 

no reasonable factfinder could have made the adverse credibility ruling. See 

Wang, 569 F.3d at 538-40. In view of the adverse credibility determinations, 

Licona-Acosta has failed to show that the BIA erred in affirming the denial of 

his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. 

See Dayo, 687 F.3d at 657-59; Wang, 569 F.3d at 538-39.

In addition, Licona-Acosta contends that the BIA and IJ erred in finding 

that he failed to comply with the regulatory requirement. Under 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.47(b), (c) & (d), an alien’s failure to file the necessary documentation to 

 Case: 16-60395 Document: 00514170807 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2017
No. 16-60395

3

support his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 

the CAT and to provide biometrics, all within the time allowed by the IJ’s order, 

constitutes abandonment of the application. The IJ may dismiss the 

application unless the applicant demonstrates that his failure to file the 

necessary documents was the result of good cause. § 1003.47(c).

The IJ advised that Licona-Acosta would be required to comply with the 

security and biometrics requirements and that his application could be denied 

if he failed to do so without reasonable cause; Licona-Acosta stated that he 

understood. Although Licona-Acosta submitted a receipt dated April 1, 2013, 

stating that he complied with the biometrics requirements, the results were 

not current as of the date of the August 2014 hearing. The IJ advised LiconaAcosta to update the information by October 6, 2014, or the IJ could deem the 

applications abandoned. The IJ acted in accordance with the plain language 

of these regulations, and Licona-Acosta has not shown an abuse of discretion 

in connection with the IJ’s decision or the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal. See

§ 1003.47(c); Velazquez-Dias v. Holder, 550 F. App’x 249, 249-50 (5th Cir. 

2013). Accordingly, Licona-Acosta’s petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 16-60395 Document: 00514170807 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/26/2017