Court Opinion

ID: 9368509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-04 01:00:32.25132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:08.648926
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60281        Document: 00516635197             Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/03/2023

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

                                                                               FILED
                                                                        February 3, 2023
                                       No. 21-60281
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk

   Lodrick Tsamoh Fiengoh,

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                                 BIA No. A213 327 857

   Before Elrod, Haynes, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Lodrick Fiengoh (“Fiengoh”) petitions for review of the Board of
   Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) final order upholding the Immigration
   Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
   and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. For the following reasons,
   we DENY the petition for review.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60281       Document: 00516635197            Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/03/2023

                                       No. 21-60281

                                  I.      Background
          Fiengoh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, alleges that he faces
   political persecution due to his membership and activities in the Cameroon
   Teachers Trade Union (“CATTU”) and the Southern Cameroons National
   Council (“SCNC”).1 Specifically, Fiengoh contends that he was repeatedly
   detained, arrested, and severely beaten following his participation in
   CATTU and SCNC protests in 2016 and 2017. Fiengoh alleges that after
   these arrests, he was apprehended by the military when it raided an SCNC
   meeting he was attending. He escaped custody, but he subsequently learned
   from the quarter head of his village that there was an outstanding warrant for
   his arrest. Shortly thereafter, the military came to his home and beat his
   father and brother. When Fiengoh’s family refused to disclose his location,
   military personnel shot his brother and raped his sister in front of his father.
          Fiengoh fled Cameroon, and on November 4, 2019, he presented
   himself at a port of entry in Laredo, Texas. After conceding removability, he
   sought relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
   under CAT.       On November 14, 2019, an asylum officer conducted a
   telephonic credible fear interview (“CFI”) of Fiengoh. At the start of the
   interview, the officer explicitly asked Fiengoh to identify his “best language
   of understanding,” and he replied, “English.” Accordingly, the interview
   was conducted in English without an interpreter. At the end of the interview,

          1
              Fiengoh contends that he is an Anglophone (an English speaker), which is a
   minority group in Cameroon—Francophones (French speakers) are the majority. See
   Mbeng v. Gonzales, 174 F. App’x 188, 191 n.6 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). The CATTU
   is a trade union comprised of Anglophones serving as teachers in Cameroon. The SCNC
   is a political organization that advocates for the Anglophone Southern Cameroons’
   independence from the largely Francophone Cameroon.

                                            2
Case: 21-60281        Document: 00516635197              Page: 3      Date Filed: 02/03/2023

                                         No. 21-60281

   Fiengoh confirmed that he understood all of the officer’s questions and that
   the summary of the interview was correct.
           Following a merits hearing, an IJ issued a written decision denying
   Fiengoh’s requests for relief. The IJ cited, among other issues, purported
   inconsistencies between Fiengoh’s statements and other written statements
   in the record. The IJ further found that Fiengoh’s corroborating evidence
   and affidavits failed to rehabilitate his credibility because they lacked indicia
   of reliability.
           On appeal, the BIA affirmed. First, it found no “clear error” in the
   IJ’s adverse credibility findings based on three purported discrepancies:
   (1) Fiengoh asserted in his testimony and his CFI that he learned about the
   arrest warrant from the village quarter head, but the quarter head’s affidavit
   indicated that he told Fiengoh’s father about the arrest warrant; (2) Fiengoh
   stated in his asylum application and his CFI that he was just an SCNC
   “supporter,” but the SCNC Secretary General’s affidavit stated that
   Fiengoh was a “coordinator”; and (3) Fiengoh failed to mention in his
   asylum application and CFI that the military beat his father in the same
   incident where his sister was raped and his brother was shot.2
           The BIA further upheld the IJ’s finding that Fiengoh’s explanations
   and other evidence failed to rehabilitate his discredited testimony. The BIA
   rejected Fiengoh’s argument that some of these inconsistencies could be
   attributed to language barriers.3               It also concluded that Fiengoh’s
   “voluminous” corroborating evidence was largely unreliable or “cast further

           2
             The BIA declined to “consider . . . some of the other discrepancies or
   implausibilities noted by the [IJ],” since the three identified discrepancies “fully
   support[ed] an adverse credibility determination.”
           3
            Fiengoh asserts that his “best language” is Pidgin English, which markedly differs
   from the English used in the border interview, CFI, and IJ proceedings.

                                               3
Case: 21-60281        Document: 00516635197            Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/03/2023

                                        No. 21-60281

   doubt on the veracity of [his] testimony.” The BIA pointed to the “identical
   linguistic idiosyncrasies” in Fiengoh’s supporting affidavits, the fact that his
   birth certificate—needed to verify employment—was issued in 2017 and did
   not indicate the date of the original document, and indicia that the arrest
   warrant was forged. Fiengoh timely petitioned for review.
                      II.   Jurisdiction & Standard of Review
          We generally only have authority to review the BIA’s decision. Wang
   v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). However, where, as here, “the
   BIA determined the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not clearly
   erroneous,” we also have “authority to review those portions of the IJ’s
   decision that impacted the BIA.” Nkenglefac v. Garland, 34 F.4th 422, 427
   (5th Cir. 2022).
          We review factual findings, such as credibility determinations, under
   the substantial evidence standard, which requires the petitioner to show
   “that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
   conclude against it.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. Under this deferential standard
   of review, “we will affirm [credibility determinations] even if we may have
   reached a different conclusion” where the record does not compel a different
   result. Singh v. Garland, 20 F.4th 1049, 1054 (5th Cir. 2021) (quotation
   omitted).
                                 III.      Discussion
          Fiengoh contends that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, which was
   fatal to his application for relief from removal, is not supported by substantial
   evidence because (1) there was no true inconsistency between his testimony
   and other aspects of the record, and, alternatively, (2) corroborating evidence
   rehabilitated any inconsistencies or lack of credibility. For the following
   reasons, we disagree.

                                             4
Case: 21-60281        Document: 00516635197        Page: 5   Date Filed: 02/03/2023

                                    No. 21-60281

   A.     Asylum & Withholding of Removal
          To qualify for asylum, Fiengoh must establish “a well-founded fear of
   persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
   particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A),
   1158(b)(1)(B)(i). To determine whether he has met this burden, “the trier of
   fact may weigh . . . credible testimony along with other evidence of record.”
   Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). “There is no presumption of credibility”—rather,
   credibility is determined by considering the “totality of the circumstances[]
   and all relevant factors.” Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 288 (5th Cir.
   2019) (quotation omitted). The IJ may infer from any singular inconsistency
   or omission—regardless of its weight or relative importance—that all of the
   testimony should be disregarded. Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 596
   (5th Cir. 2021).
          Here, the BIA pointed to two inconsistencies and one omission by
   Fiengoh that were identified by the IJ. First, the IJ noted that Fiengoh stated
   in his asylum application that he was a “sympathizer and supporter” of the
   SCNC, and in his CFI he claimed that his role entailed distributing posters
   and flyers.   However, the General Secretary of the SCNC’s affidavit
   contended that Fiengoh was a “coordinator” in the organization. When
   asked about this discrepancy, Fiengoh simply responded, “I don’t know why
   [the General Secretary] did that.”
          This discrepancy is sufficient to support the IJ’s credibility
   determination. Indeed, we have previously sustained a credibility finding
   based on an inconsistency regarding a petitioner’s role in a political
   organization. See Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 223, 226 (5th Cir. 2018).
   The fact that Fiengoh’s own statements about his role in the SCNC were
   consistent does not obviate the issue. It was reasonable for the IJ to conclude
   that a leader of the SCNC would accurately testify as to Fiengoh’s role in the

                                          5
Case: 21-60281         Document: 00516635197           Page: 6   Date Filed: 02/03/2023

                                        No. 21-60281

   organization. Moreover, the term “coordinator” is not synonymous with
   “sympathizer and supporter,” and these roles plainly entail different levels
   of responsibility and risk. Accordingly, we do not believe the evidence
   compels a contrary conclusion regarding Fiengoh’s credibility.
          Additionally, the BIA and IJ relied on an inconsistency in Fiengoh’s
   description of the military’s attack on his family members. In his CFI and
   asylum application, Fiengoh stated that his sister was raped and his brother
   was killed in the incident. Moreover, at the end of Fiengoh’s CFI, the officer
   provided Fiengoh with a summary of the interview and asked if Fiengoh had
   anything to add, to which he repeated his prior statement that the military
   raped his sister and shot his brother. However, Fiengoh’s father stated in his
   affidavit that he was also “severely beaten” during the incident. When later
   asked why he failed to mention his father’s beating, Fiengoh attributed the
   omission to a language barrier.                However, this explanation seems
   questionable, particularly given that Fiengoh (1) explicitly told the officer
   during the CFI that English was his “best language,” (2) confirmed that he
   understood all of the officer’s questions at the end of the CFI, and (3) claims
   to have taught Geography and Citizenship Education at an English-speaking
   high school.
          Fiengoh also argues that the purported discrepancy regarding how he
   learned about the outstanding warrant is not a true inconsistency. But even
   assuming he is correct,4 each of the other discrepancies alone are sufficient
   to support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Wang, 569 F.3d at 538 (“[A]n
   IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility
   determination.” (quotation omitted)).

          4
              The Government seems to concede this point.

                                              6
Case: 21-60281        Document: 00516635197             Page: 7      Date Filed: 02/03/2023

                                        No. 21-60281

           Fiengoh’s corroborating evidence cannot alter this conclusion
   because it does not “resolve the inconsistencies that the BIA found so
   troubling.”     Ghotra, 912 F.3d at 290.             Instead, many of Fiengoh’s
   “corroborating” documents contain the “hallmarks of fraud” such as
   “misspellings, overwriting, incorrect information, and alterations”—
   bolstering the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. Matter of O-M-O, 28
   I. & N. Dec. 191, 194 (BIA 2021) (quotation omitted); see also Singh v.
   Wilkinson, 838 F. App’x 109, 111 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (“[T]he IJ’s
   concern about the veracity of the letters was substantially reasonable given a
   report in the record.”).5 For example, the purported arrest warrant contains
   an illegible date, and the word “state” is misspelled. Further, several
   affidavits contain “identical” language and other indicia of unreliability. See
   Hong Lin v. Holder, 383 F. App’x 393, 395 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)
   (upholding an adverse credibility finding based in part on discrepancies
   between two versions of documents submitted by the petitioner).
           In sum, given the inconsistencies, omissions, and unreliable
   documents, Fiengoh has not demonstrated that the evidence should have
   “compelled” a factfinder to conclude he was credible. We therefore must
   defer to the BIA’s adverse credibility determination, which precludes asylum
   relief. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536–37. Further, because withholding of
   removal “poses a higher bar than the ‘well-founded fear’ standard for
   asylum,” Fiengoh’s failure to carry his burden for asylum also precludes his
   withholding of removal claim. Ghotra, 912 F.3d at 288.
   B.      CAT Relief

           5
            Although Singh v. Wilkinson and related unpublished opinions cited herein “[are]
   not controlling precedent,” they “may be [cited as] persuasive authority.” Ballard v.
   Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4).

                                              7
Case: 21-60281     Document: 00516635197             Page: 8   Date Filed: 02/03/2023

                                      No. 21-60281

          CAT claims are “separate from the claims for asylum and withholding
   of removal and should receive separate analytical attention.” Efe v. Ashcroft,
   293 F.3d 899, 906–07 (5th Cir. 2002). To qualify for CAT relief, the
   applicant carries the “burden of proof” to establish “that it is more likely
   than not” that he “would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
   removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). An adverse credibility finding alone is
   insufficient to prevent CAT relief where the applicant offers “non-
   testimonial evidence that could independently establish his entitlement to
   CAT relief.” Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 598; see 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3). But
   Fiengoh offered only the same unreliable evidence discussed above to
   support his claim for CAT relief. Accordingly, he fails to carry his burden,
   and his CAT claim likewise fails. See Ghotra, 912 F.3d at 290.
                                IV.      Conclusion
          For the reasons set forth above, we DENY the petition for review.

                                           8