United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60698

Summary Calendar

Yasmany Jorge Borges Alfonso, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A215 734 323

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Yasmany Jorge Borges Alfonso, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions

for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding 

the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility finding and dismissing his 

appeal from the IJ’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

April 14, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60698 Document: 00515821420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
No. 19-60698

2

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Borges 

makes three claims: the BIA violated his due-process rights; it improperly 

found him not credible, adversely affecting his asylum and withholding-ofremoval claims; and it and the IJ improperly concluded his CAT claim was 

meritless. 

Borges claims the BIA violated his due-process rights because it 

rejected his claim that the IJ violated those rights in: failing to grant a 

continuance and consider evidence he submitted; and prejudicially 

misinterpreting his testimony. The claim fails because Borges has not made 

a prima facie showing that the asserted due-process violation affected the 

outcome of the proceedings. See Santos-Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 439 

(5th Cir. 2020) (alien must make prima facie showing of asserted due-process 

violation affecting outcome of proceedings). 

Regarding Borges’ claim that the BIA and IJ should have found him 

credible, factual findings, including credibility determinations, are reviewed 

for substantial evidence; questions of law, de novo. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 

531, 536–37 (5th Cir. 2009) (applying substantial evidence standard of review 

for factual findings based on credibility determinations); Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 

F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007). 

In the light of the BIA’s adopting two of the inconsistencies found by 

the IJ, the record does not compel our determining Borges was credible, 

notwithstanding his alternative explanations for the inconsistences. See

Wang, 569 F.3d at 536–37 (“Under substantial evidence review, this court 

may not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels it.”). 

Given the adverse credibility finding, we reach the merits of Borges’ asylum 

and withholding-of-removal claims “only to the extent that other evidence 

was presented to support those claims”. Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 

1056, 1061–62 (5th Cir. 2020). After considering the evidence identified in 

Case: 19-60698 Document: 00515821420 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
No. 19-60698

3

Borges’ counseled brief, we conclude the BIA’s decision was supported by 

substantial evidence. 

Finally, by failing to meaningfully challenge the BIA’s reasons for 

dismissing his appeal from the denial of CAT relief, Borges has abandoned 

that claim. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004)

(“[Petitioner] has waived her claim for relief under [CAT] by failing to raise 

it in her petition for review.”).

DENIED.

Case: 19-60698 Document: 00515821420 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2021