Court Opinion

ID: 9400897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 18:02:17.519763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.287596
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60437        Document: 00516780588             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

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

                                     ____________                                FILED
                                                                              June 9, 2023
                                       No. 21-60437                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                Clerk

   Metoh Irenaeus Fuechorih,

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                    Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A203 680 222
                     ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Metoh Irenaeus Fuechorih is a native and citizen of Cameroon who
   sought admission to the United States at a port of entry in 2019. Fuechorih
   was placed in removal proceedings, and subsequently applied for asylum,
   withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention against
   Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Fuechorih removable as
   charged and denied his applications for relief and protection from removal
   based in part on an adverse credibility finding. The Board of Immigration

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60437      Document: 00516780588          Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                    No. 21-60437

   Appeals (BIA) found no error in the IJ’s decision and dismissed Fuechorih’s
   appeal. Fuechorih now petitions this court for review. For the reasons
   discussed below, we DENY his petition.
                 I. Factual and Procedural History
          Fuechorih, born in the northwest region of Cameroon, is an
   anglophone who joined the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC)
   in 2016 to protest discrimination against anglophone Cameroonians. The
   Cameroonian government, which is majority-francophone, has deemed the
   SCNC an “illegal” organization due to its goal of creating a separate,
   anglophone nation in Southern Cameroon. The government often arrests
   SCNC members for associating publicly. Between 2018 and 2019,
   Cameroonian police officers twice detained Fuechorih for over a week due to
   his participation in SCNC protests. During these detentions, Fuechorih was
   mocked for being anglophone, asked to denounce the SCNC, beaten twice
   daily, and told he would be killed.
          After recovering from his second detention, Fuechorih fled Cameroon
   with the help of his father. Fuechorih presented himself at the United States–
   Mexico border seeking asylum and was detained by immigration officials.
   The government provided Fuechorih with a credible fear interview and
   placed him in removal proceedings. The asylum officer who conducted the
   credible fear interview found Fuechorih to have a credible fear of persecution
   based on political opinion. Fuechorih, appearing pro se before the IJ, applied
   for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT. In support
   of his applications, Fuechorih submitted his own declaration as well as those
   from his parents and a close friend from Cameroon who allegedly cared for
   him after his second detention. After holding a hearing where Fuechorih
   testified in support of his applications, the IJ found Fuechorih removable as
   charged and denied his applications for relief and protection from removal.

                                             2
Case: 21-60437      Document: 00516780588           Page: 3     Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                     No. 21-60437

          The IJ made an adverse credibility finding against Fuechorih based on
   ten discrepancies between his testimony and his other submitted evidence,
   which “called into question the veracity of his claims about past harm and
   fear of future harm.” In the alternative, the IJ found that Fuechorih had not
   presented sufficient evidence to support his applications for asylum and
   withholding of removal or his request for protection under CAT. The BIA
   sustained the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, relying on five of the IJ’s stated
   reasons for making such a finding. The BIA further found that, even if
   Fuechorih had presented credible evidence, he did not submit sufficient
   evidence to support his applications for relief and protection from removal.
   Fuechorih, now represented by counsel, filed the instant petition for review
   arguing that the BIA erred in denying Fuechorih’s applications for relief and
   protection.
                          II. Standard of Review
          This Court reviews an immigration court’s factual findings for
   substantial evidence and conclusions of law de novo. Orellana-Monson v.
   Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012). Credibility determinations are
   factual findings that are reviewed for substantial evidence. Singh v. Sessions,
   880 F.3d 220, 224–25 (5th Cir. 2018). While an adverse-credibility
   determination “must be supported by specific and cogent reasons derived
   from the record,” “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making
   an adverse-credibility determination as long as the ‘totality of the
   circumstances’ establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Wang v.
   Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537–38 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal citations removed); see
   also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The petitioner has “the burden of showing
   that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a
   contrary conclusion.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
   We therefore defer to an IJ’s credibility determination unless we decide “not
   only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the

                                               3
Case: 21-60437        Document: 00516780588              Page: 4      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                         No. 21-60437

   evidence compels it.” Id. (internal citation omitted); see also Singh, 880 F.3d
   at 225.
                                    III. Discussion
             This court’s analysis begins and ends with the adverse credibility
   finding. The BIA dismissed Fuechorih’s appeal based in part on five of the
   inconsistencies or omissions identified by the IJ in finding Fuechorih not
   credible. Fuechorih argues on appeal that the IJ and BIA failed to offer cogent
   reasons in support of the adverse credibility finding, relying instead on trivial
   inconsistencies in his evidence. The government responds that the BIA
   properly relied on material omissions and inconsistencies between
   Fuechorih’s testimony and the other evidence he submitted in finding him
   not credible. We agree. The BIA offered specific reasons supported by the
   record in making its adverse credibility finding.1
             In finding Fuechorih not credible, the BIA relied on five
   inconsistences or omissions identified by the IJ. First, the BIA pointed to a
   discrepancy regarding whether Fuechorih ever paid dues as a SCNC
   member; while Fuechorih submitted an “Attestation of Membership” from
   the SCNC stating that he was up to date with his membership dues,
   Fuechorih testified that he never paid any fees to the SCNC. Second, the BIA
   noted that while Fuechorih testified that he participated in a large protest on
   May 19, 2018—the same day he was first detained—he described this event
   as a meeting in his asylum applications and declaration. Third, the BIA
   highlighted that while Fuechorih stated during his credible fear interview that
   officials kicked him and tore his clothing during his first detention, Fuechorih

             _____________________
             1
              Because we resolve Fuechorih’s appeal based on the adverse credibility finding,
   we do not reach the sufficiency of the evidence he presented in support of his applications
   for relief and protection from removal.

                                                   4
Case: 21-60437      Document: 00516780588          Page: 5   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                    No. 21-60437

   did not make this claim during his testimony before the IJ. Fourth, the BIA
   observed that Fuechorih testified that after his departure from Cameroon his
   parents were harassed by the military and forced to flee their home; yet
   Fuechorih’s parents submitted an affidavit that did not include any such
   incident while describing harassment suffered by friends and other family.
   Lastly, while Fuechorih testified that his friend took him in and helped him
   recuperate after his second detention, an affidavit from that same friend
   omitted any mention of housing Fuechorih or caring for any of his injuries
   after the second detention.
          Fuechorih maintains that these inconsistencies and omissions do not
   warrant an adverse credibility finding because they are trivial and resulted
   from some miscommunication. Yet Fuechorih’s attempts to explain away the
   evidentiary inconsistencies and omissions identified by the IJ do not compel
   the conclusion that he is credible. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538. Fuechorih’s
   focus on the importance of the inconsistencies is misguided given that an
   adverse credibility assessment may be based on “any inconsistency” even if
   it does not “go to the ‘heart’ of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant
   factor.” Id. at 538–40 (“An appellate court is not in a position to judge
   [petitioner]’s demeanor, and the IJ was not required to accept [petitioner]’s
   testimony as true in the face of inconsistencies and verbal and nonverbal cues
   of deception.”); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Moreover, Fuechorih’s
   attempts to justify the inconsistencies as the result of some confusion on his
   part or on the part of the IJ “do not compel a conclusion that no reasonable
   factfinder could have found h[im] to be incredible.” Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954
   F.3d 757, 768 (5th Cir. 2020) (“[Petitioner]’s unsupported explanations do
   not compel a conclusion that no reasonable factfinder could have found her
   to be incredible.”).
          The BIA identified five specific inconsistencies or omissions between
   Fuechorih’s testimony and other supporting affidavits or evidence. These

                                             5
Case: 21-60437        Document: 00516780588              Page: 6       Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                          No. 21-60437

   discrepancies, which call into question whether Fuechorih was in fact a
   member of SCNC, sustained injuries during his detentions, and continues to
   be a target of government persecution, are sufficient grounds for the adverse
   credibility finding. See Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 2019)
   (denying petition for review where BIA relied on “numerous inconsistencies
   between [petitioner]’s testimony, asylum application, and proffered
   affidavits”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (inconsistency forming
   basis of adverse credibility finding need not “go[] to heart of the applicant’s
   claim”). Fuechorih’s explanations for the discrepancies, though reasonable,
   do not compel the conclusion that he is credible. Santos-Alvarado v. Barr, 967
   F.3d 428, 437 (5th Cir. 2020) (Though petitioner offered “reasonable
   explanation” for inconsistency, it does not follow that the IJ’s adverse
   credibility finding must be set aside); Ying Pan Qhao v. Lynch, 608 F. App’x
   282, 283 (5th Cir. 2015) (“[Petitioner]’s attempts to explain away the
   evidentiary inconsistencies, implausibilities, and lack of detail identified by
   the IJ do not constitute substantial evidence compelling the conclusion that
   she is credible.”) (unpublished).
           For example, Fuechorih maintains that certain of the inconsistencies
   or omissions forming the basis of the adverse credibility finding resulted from
   confusion and miscommunication during his credible fear interview2 and
   testimony before the IJ. However, Fuechorih’s justifications, many of which
   lack support in the record, do not compel a conclusion that Fuechorih is
   credible. See Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at 768; Qhao, 608 F. App’x at 283. Given
           _____________________
           2
             Fuechorih insists that the IJ erred in relying on the asylum officer’s notes from
   the credible fear interview because such notes “should not be accepted at face value,” yet
   our circuit has explicitly held that “discrepancies among an alien’s [credible fear
   interview], other records, and testimony can be considered in deciding credibility.” Avelar-
   Oliva, 954 F.3d at 765 (citing Singh, 880 F.3d at 226).

                                                    6
Case: 21-60437     Document: 00516780588           Page: 7   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                    No. 21-60437

   the “highly deferential” review afforded to credibility findings, Fuechorih
   has failed to show that under the totality of the circumstances no reasonable
   factfinder could have found his testimony to be not credible. Wang, 569 F.3d
   at 538 (“We have long employed a highly deferential review to assessments
   of credibility by factfinders.”); see id. (“an asylum application presents a
   particularly difficult area for demeanor evaluations and appellate review of
   same.”); Singh, 880 F.3d at 225–26 (denying petition for review where
   petitioner “failed to show that no reasonable fact-finder could make an
   adverse credibility ruling”). Accordingly, the BIA’s adverse credibility
   determination is supported by substantial evidence.
                               IV. Conclusion
          Because an adverse credibility determination prevents Fuechorih
   from satisfying his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, withholding
   of removal, or protection under the CAT, Fuechorih’s petition for review is
   DENIED.

                                             7