United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 21-60182 

____________ 

Simon Hagos Gidey, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________ 

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

Agency No. A213 482 834 

______________________________ 

Before Smith, Clement, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Simon Hagos Gidey, purportedly a native and citizen of Eritrea, was 

served with a notice to appear for arriving in the United States without a visa 

or other valid entry document. He conceded removal and applied for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

(CAT). The immigration judge (IJ) denied his applications. Gidey appealed 

to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal. 

Gidey petitioned this court for review. We deny the petition. 

_____________________ 

*

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

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

June 26, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-60182 Document: 00516800497 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023
No. 21-60182 

2 

 Gidey testified as follows at his removal hearing. He was born in 1994 

and raised primarily by his mother in Senafe, Eritrea. His father was a soldier. 

In 2016, Gidey’s father was arrested, and his family’s income plummeted. 

To make up for the shortfall, Gidey started working at a bakery in May 2016. 

He completed eleventh grade a month later and, per Eritrean law, was 

required to report to a military camp to begin compulsory military service. 

Gidey shortly received two summonses from Eritrean authorities directing 

him to report. He ignored them because he knew he would be arrested if he 

reported and because he needed to support his family financially. He further 

explained that he opposes Eritrean military service because it is “like 

slavery,” “human rights are not respected,” it is unpaid, it lasts indefinitely, 

and “[soldiers] are [] servant[s] of the officials.” 

In October 2016, after Eritrean authorities arrested Gidey’s mother, 

he turned himself in. He was detained for two weeks. During that time, he 

was beaten and interrogated. He escaped detention by scaling a prison fence

and traveled by foot through Eritrea into Ethiopia. Gidey was questioned by 

Ethiopian authorities, received a ration card, and completed forms to obtain 

refugee status. He was transported to a refugee camp called Hitsats, where 

he lived for about three years. Gidey testified that he was politically active 

there and openly expressed his views against the Eritrean government. 

 According to Gidey, after Ethiopia and Eritrea entered into a peace 

treaty, agents of the Eritrean government began entering Ethiopian refugee 

camps to kidnap Eritreans. In August 2019, Gidey fled to Brazil with the 

assistance of a smuggler who took Gidey’s ration card, but supplied Gidey 

with an Ethiopian passport that had Gidey’s identifying information on it. 

Gidey arrived in Laredo, Texas in February 2020 and applied for admission 

to enter the United States. In support, Gidey submitted a declaration, birth 

certificate, handwritten baptismal certificate, letters from his family 

members, and country conditions evidence. 

Case: 21-60182 Document: 00516800497 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2023
No. 21-60182 

3 

The IJ held that Gidey’s testimony was “lacking in persuasiveness 

and that corroboration was necessary.” Specifically, the IJ faulted Gidey for 

failing to produce the military summonses and proof of his employment at 

the bakery. Gidey explained that he could not provide the summonses 

because he did not ask his family in Eritrea to send them. He clarified that he 

assumed his family had thrown them away. As for proof of employment at 

the bakery, Gidey proffered only a letter from his mother, which the IJ found 

insufficient because she was an interested witness not subject to crossexamination. 

Further, the IJ found that Gidey’s “identity was questionable as 

well.” Though acknowledging that Gidey provided a birth certificate and 

handwritten baptismal certificate, the IJ found that neither document had 

been authenticated. The IJ also noted that Gidey had obtained an “Ethiopian 

passport that allowed him to travel through many different countries on his 

way to the United States.” This fact, in conjunction with “the manner in 

which [Gidey] allegedly obtained his Ethiopian passport” and “the alleged 

length of time [Gidey] indicated he was in Ethiopia,” led the IJ to conclude 

that Gidey’s “nationality could be Eritrean or Ethiopian.” Given the lack of 

corroboration, the IJ found that Gidey could not meet his burden to show 

entitlement to relief.1

 

Gidey appealed to the BIA, which upheld the IJ’s determination that 

Gidey’s claims were not sufficiently corroborated and rejected Gidey’s 

explanations for his failure to corroborate.2

 Gidey now seeks our review. 

_____________________ 

1

 The IJ, assuming Gidey’s persuasiveness, alternatively analyzed Gidey’s claims 

on the merits and reached the same result. 

2

 The BIA also considered the merits of Gidey’s claims in the alternative and 

reached the same result. 

Case: 21-60182 Document: 00516800497 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/26/2023
No. 21-60182 

4 

 “We review the order of the BIA and the ruling of the IJ to the extent 

it influences the order of the BIA.” Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 

(5th Cir. 2011). We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determinations 

that Gidey was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. 

Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). When we review for 

substantial evidence, “reversal is improper unless we decide not only that the 

evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels

it.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Gidey bears the burden of 

establishing his entitlement to asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 

relief. Rui Yang, 664 F.3d at 584, 588–89. He fails to meet his burden, as he 

has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that 

reached by the BIA. See id. 

Insofar as he argues that the BIA erred by requiring him to submit 

corroborating evidence, this argument fails. See id. at 585–87. Moreover, the 

BIA’s conclusion that Gidey reasonably could have provided the requisite 

corroborating evidence is supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 587. 

Finally, the country conditions evidence that Gidey submitted does not 

establish that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted, much less 

tortured, in the country of removal because Gidey failed to persuade the IJ of 

his identity, i.e., that he is a native and citizen of Eritrea. True enough, the 

BIA has granted CAT relief to Eritreans “based on the Eritrean 

government’s practices and its appalling human rights record,” Milat v. 

Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 364 (5th Cir. 2014), but Gidey’s CAT claim falters, like 

his others, because he has not provided sufficient evidence that he is Eritrean, 

as opposed to Ethiopian. Gidey thus failed to prove that he falls into the 

categories of people who, per the country conditions evidence in the record, 

may be tortured in Eritrea: Eritrean nationals who evade military service and 

Eritreans who leave the country illegally. 

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 21-60182 Document: 00516800497 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/26/2023