Court Opinion

ID: 9786693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:00:42.166056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:23.010264
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60155         Document: 00516878525             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/30/2023

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

                                                                                        FILED
                                       No. 23-60155
                                                                                  August 30, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   Yu Deng Hu,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A215 759 368
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Yu Deng Hu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a
   decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal
   from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) finding him not credible, ordering
   him removed, and denying his application for asylum, withholding of
   removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60155      Document: 00516878525           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/30/2023

                                     No. 23-60155

            We review the BIA’s opinion and consider the IJ’s decision only
   insofar as it influences the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir.
   2018).    Because the BIA’s determinations that Hu was incredible and
   ineligible for CAT relief are reviewed for substantial evidence, we should not
   disturb them unless the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion. Singh,
   880 F.3d at 224–25; Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
            Hu’s general arguments that any discrepancies arising amongst his
   evidence were trivial and that he provided reasonable explanations for them
   do not meet the substantial evidence standard. See Singh, 880 F.3d at
   224–25; see also Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 594 (5th Cir. 2020).
   Because the adverse credibility finding suffices to deny Hu’s claims for
   asylum and withholding, we decline to consider his remaining arguments
   concerning this form of relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)
   (per curiam); Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 597; Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th
   Cir. 1994).
            Insofar as he relies upon new evidence in support of his CAT
   argument, we decline to consider it.         See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A);
   Ramchandani v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 337, 339 n.1 (5th Cir. 2005). His
   arguments based on record evidence do not compel the conclusion that he
   more likely than not will be tortured if repatriated. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at
   344; Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017). The petition for
   review is DENIED.

                                          2