Court Opinion

ID: 9366228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:03:38.960339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.816998
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60046     Document: 00516419788         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/04/2022

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

                                                                             FILED
                                  No. 21-60046                          August 4, 2022
                                Summary Calendar
                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk

   Amon Rweyemam Mtaza,

                                                                      Petitioner,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                     Respondent.

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                            Agency No. A087 156 435

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Amon Rweyemam Mtaza, a native and citizen of Tanzania, petitions
   for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing his appeal from the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of his

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 21-60046      Document: 00516419788            Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                    No. 21-60046

   application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He does
   not challenge the conclusions that he was statutorily ineligible for asylum and
   for withholding of removal. Although Mtaza argues that the BIA violated his
   due process rights by failing to consider whether he alleged a viable particular
   social group, that he established he would be harmed on account of his
   political opinion, that non-life-threatening violence may constitute
   persecution, and that the Tanzanian government engaged in a pattern and
   practice of persecution, he did not present these allegations to the BIA, and
   we lack jurisdiction to consider the issues. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Roy
   v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004).
          We review the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, and we
   consider the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced the BIA. Singh
   v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
   339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Contrary to Mtaza’s assertion, the agency applied
   the correct standard to his CAT claims. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2),
   1208.18(a)(1). The BIA and IJ considered all four of Mtaza’s interactions
   with Tanzanian police and secret service officials between 1998 and 2004 and
   expressly stated that Mtaza’s claims for relief were based on allegations of
   torture committed by these arms of the government rather than by third
   parties with the acquiescence of governmental officials. Although Mtaza
   contends that BIA and IJ failed to consider the evidence he presented
   regarding the potential harms suffered by opponents of the ruling party in
   Tanzania, the agency specifically referenced the evidence. Cf. Arulnanthy
   v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 591-92 (5th Cir. 2021) (stating that the agency must
   consider country conditions evidence in evaluating a CAT claim). Although
   the IJ and BIA did not explicitly reference each piece of evidence presented
   by Mtaza, the agency is not required to “address evidentiary minutiae or
   write any lengthy exegesis” as long as the opinion reflects “meaningful

                                          2
Case: 21-60046     Document: 00516419788          Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                   No. 21-60046

   consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s
   claims.” Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996).
          Mtaza maintains that he has established that it is more likely than not
   that he will be tortured if he returns to Tanzania, given his credible and
   corroborated testimony of his past altercations with security and police, his
   assertions that he would be tortured if he returned to Tanzania, and his
   country conditions evidence. However, the BIA’s denial of relief was
   “substantially reasonable” in light of the evidence and testimony presented.
   Kane v. Holder, 581 F.3d 231, 236 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted). Mtaza has not shown that the evidence compels a
   different conclusion. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. Accordingly, his petition
   for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. Mtaza’s motion
   for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.

                                         3