Court Opinion

ID: 9946079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 01:00:40.042737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:25.014116
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60144           Document: 70-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/28/2024

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

                                   No. 23-60144
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                            February 28, 2024
                                 Summary Calendar
                                 ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
Emmanuel Ganga Wesseh,

                                                                             Petitioner,

                                         versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                            Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A094 676 568
                  ______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Emmanuel Ganga Wesseh, a native and citizen of Liberia, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding
the denial of his applications for adjustment of status, a waiver of
inadmissibility, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We review the BIA’s decision and consider the decision of the

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60144        Document: 70-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/28/2024

                                 No. 23-60144

immigration judge (IJ) only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Singh v.
Garland, 20 F.4th 1049, 1052 (5th Cir. 2021).
       Wesseh argues that the IJ exhibited bias against him amounting to a
due process violation. The absence of a neutral arbiter can constitute a due
process violation in an alien’s removal proceedings. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d
531, 540 (5th Cir. 2009). We have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims
and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Due process claims are
reviewed de novo. Bouchikhi v. Holder, 676 F.3d 173, 180 (5th Cir. 2012).
       Opinions formed by the IJ based on facts or events arising in the course
of the alien’s proceedings “do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality
motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would
make fair judgment impossible.” Wang, 569 F.3d at 540 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Comments by an IJ during a hearing that are
“critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their
cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).          “[E]xpressions of impatience,
dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger, that are within the bounds of
what imperfect men and women” at times display are insufficient to establish
bias. Id. at 540-41 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While the
IJ and Wesseh’s counsel had confrontational exchanges relating to certain
evidence, including documentary evidence that Wesseh sought to admit
regarding systemic racism in the United States, Wesseh has not shown that
fair judgment was impossible or that the IJ’s conduct otherwise met the
standard for a due process violation based on bias. See id.
       Next, Wesseh challenges the denial of protection under the CAT. We
have jurisdiction to review his argument. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct.
1683, 1690 (2020). For protection under the CAT, Wesseh was required to
show both that (1) he more likely than not would suffer torture if removed to

                                       2
Case: 23-60144         Document: 70-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/28/2024

                                  No. 23-60144

Liberia and (2) sufficient state action would be involved in that torture. See
Aviles-Tavera v. Garland, 22 F.4th 478, 486 (5th Cir. 2022). A foreign
government’s “lack of financial resources to eradicate the threat or risk of
torture” does not constitute sufficient state action. Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
         The BIA’s factual determination that an individual is not eligible for
CAT protection is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Chen
v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under that standard, the
petitioner “has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that
no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. The
documentary evidence cited by Wesseh here fails to establish a likelihood of
torture specific to him. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir.
2017).
         In denying CAT protection, the IJ relied on the State Department’s
2021 report on country conditions in Liberia, which noted recent peaceful
elections in Liberia and efforts by the Liberian government to provide
protection and assistance to returning refugees and other vulnerable persons
of concern. Wesseh has not shown that the evidence as a whole compels the
conclusion that he more likely than not would be tortured in Liberia by, or
with the acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official
capacity. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1140-41; Aviles-Tavera, 22 F.4th at 482, 486.
         While Wesseh also contests the denial of his applications for
adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) and a waiver of inadmissibility
under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), his argument regarding such relief does not present
a legal question or constitutional claim. We lack jurisdiction to review the
decisions in this case denying such relief as a matter of discretion. See
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); § 1252(a)(2)(C); Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 331-33,

                                        3
Case: 23-60144          Document: 70-1     Page: 4     Date Filed: 02/28/2024

                                  No. 23-60144

338-39 (2022). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part for
lack of jurisdiction.
       Lastly, Wesseh argues that he was deprived of a full and fair hearing
because the IJ excluded his documentary evidence on systemic racism in the
United States and ruled that one of his proposed witnesses, Dr. Bernadette
Ludwig, did not qualify as an expert. Wesseh cannot establish a due process
violation with respect to the discretionary denial of his applications for
adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility because he lacks a liberty
interest in such discretionary relief. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440
(5th Cir. 2006).
       To prevail on his due process claim relative to the CAT, Wesseh must
make an initial showing of substantial prejudice, in addition to demonstrating
a violation of his due process rights. See Santos-Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d
428, 439-40 (5th Cir. 2020). Showing substantial prejudice with regard to
Dr. Ludwig requires that Wesseh at least show that the IJ’s ruling on Dr.
Ludwig was an abuse of discretion. See Bouchikhi, 676 F.3d at 180. In ruling
that Dr. Ludwig did not qualify as an expert, the IJ took note of Dr. Ludwig’s
limited contact with recent Liberian refugees in the United States; her lack
of familiarity with the latest State Department report on country conditions
in Liberia; and, to a lesser extent, the fact that she had never been to Liberia.
Citing those factors, the BIA determined that the IJ’s ruling on Dr. Ludwig
was not an abuse of discretion.
       Wesseh does not dispute the accuracy of the factors cited by the IJ and
BIA. Notwithstanding his disagreement with the significance of those factors
compared to Dr. Ludwig’s other qualifications, the IJ is afforded discretion
in deciding whether a witness qualifies as an expert. See Bouchikhi, 676 F.3d
at 180. The IJ and BIA relied on factors relevant to Dr. Ludwig’s expertise
on the current country conditions in Liberia. Wesseh has not shown that the

                                       4
Case: 23-60144        Document: 70-1       Page: 5    Date Filed: 02/28/2024

                                 No. 23-60144

ruling on Dr. Ludwig’s expertise was an abuse of discretion and therefore has
failed to make the initial showing of substantial prejudice required for his due
process claim on the issue. See id. at 180-81.
       Wesseh also fails to make the requisite showing of prejudice regarding
his evidence of systemic racism in the United States. He has not shown that
such evidence was relevant to the standard for CAT protection, which
concerns the likelihood that he would be tortured in Liberia, not his
experience in the United States. See Santos-Alvarado, 967 F.3d at 436. Thus,
he cannot show that the exclusion of such evidence affected the outcome of
his claim for protection under the CAT. See id. at 439.
       The petition for review is DISMISSED in part for lack of
jurisdiction and DENIED in all other respects.

                                       5