# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 20-60882 Summary Calendar

Godlove Nswohnonomi,

Petitioner ,

versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A203 600 698

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Godlove Nswohnonomi, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of a decision of the Bo ard of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing the appeal of a decision in which an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his applications for asylum, withhold ing 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* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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 February 22, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60882 Document: 00516211846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2022No. 20-60882

2 Convention Against Torture (CAT). Nswohnonomi argues that the BIA erred by dismissing his appeal, conten ding that he established that he suffered past persecution at the ha nds of the Cameroonian government and has a well-founded fear of future pers ecution at the hands of the government based on his imputed political opinio n and his membership in a particular social group. Nswohnonomi further assert s that the IJ did not act as a neutral arbiter, thereby violating Nswohn onomi’s due process rights.

An alien must exhaust all administra tive remedies available to him as of right before this court may review a final order. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (d)(1). Nswohnonomi failed to exhaust be fore the BIA, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider his claims that the Cameroonian government imputes a pro-separatist political opinion on most Anglophones, that the BIA failed to consider that the reason he was detained was a pretext for persecution, and that he was a member of a particular social group comprised of Anglophones. See Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir.2004). Regarding Nswohnonomi’s exhausted claims, we review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its fa ctual findings under the substantial evidence standard, meaning that the find ings must be based on the evidence and be substantially reasonable. Orellana-Monson v. Holder , 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012). “Under the su bstantial evidence standard, reversal is improper unless we decide not only th at the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.” Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quot ation marks and citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that Nswohnonomi failed to show that he suffered past persecution. The conditions and treatment Nswohnonomi experienced during his 10-day detention by Cameroonian security forces were not ex treme enough to compel a finding of past persecution. See Tesfamichael v. Gonzales , 469 F.3d 109, 117 (5th Cir. Case: 20-60882 Document: 00516211846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2022No. 20-60882

3 2006). Further, based on the arguments properly raised to the BIA, we find no error in the BIA’s determination th at Nswohnonomi has failed to establish a nexus between his alleged harm and a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Shaika v. Holder , 588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2009). Because Nswohnonomi failed to satisfy the asylum standard, he cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See OrellanaMonson , 685 F.3d at 518. Moreover, Ns wohnonomi’s assertions regarding his CAT claim are too speculative to support CAT relief for a specific individual and are therefore insuffici ent to compel reversal under the substantial eviden ce standard. See Hakim v. Holder , 628 F.3d 151, 155 (5th Cir. 2010); see also Revencu v. Sessions , 895 F.3d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 2018). Finally, because the IJ gave Nswohnonomi the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence at his merits hearing, he fails to establish a due process violation in connection with his argument that the IJ failed to act as a neutral arbiter. See Toscano-Gil v. Trominski , 210 F.3d 470, 474 (5th Cir. 2000). The petition for review is DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART for want of jurisdiction. Case: 20-60882 Document: 00516211846 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2022