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 Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

dismissing the appeal of a decision in which an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied 

his applications 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 

February 22, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-60882 Document: 00516211846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2022
No. 20-60882 

2 

Convention Against Torture (CAT). Nswohnonomi argues that the BIA 

erred by dismissing his appeal, contending that he established that he 

suffered past persecution at the hands of the Cameroonian government and 

has a well-founded fear of future persecution at the hands of the government 

based on his imputed political opinion and his membership in a particular 

social group. Nswohnonomi further asserts that the IJ did not act as a neutral 

arbiter, thereby violating Nswohnonomi’s due process rights. 

An alien must exhaust all administrative 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 before 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 factual findings under the substantial 

evidence standard, meaning that the findings 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 substantial evidence standard, reversal is 

improper unless we decide not only that 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 quotation 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 extreme 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: 02/22/2022
No. 20-60882 

3 

2006). Further, based on the arguments properly raised to the BIA, we find 

no error in the BIA’s determination that 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, Nswohnonomi’s assertions regarding 

his CAT claim are too speculative to support CAT relief for a specific 

individual and are therefore insufficient to compel reversal under the 

substantial evidence 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