Court Opinion

ID: 9385515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 00:00:35.135471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:02.476439
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60275         Document: 00516703840             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/06/2023

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

                                       No. 22-60275
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                   April 6, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Maura Hernandez-Chan,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.

                          Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              Board of Immigration Appeals
                                Agency No. A203 715 645

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Petitioner Maura Hernandez-Chan petitions this court to review the
   decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal
   of a denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
   Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons that follow, we DENY her
   petition.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60275      Document: 00516703840             Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/06/2023

                                       No. 22-60275

          We review the BIA’s decision; we consider the Immigration Judge’s
   (“IJ”) decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Nunez v. Sessions,
   882 F.3d 499, 505 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). We will reverse the BIA’s
   factual determinations “only if the evidence is so compelling that no
   reasonable fact finder could fail to find the petitioner statutorily eligible for
   relief.” Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 909 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation
   omitted). In contrast, we “review[] the BIA’s legal determinations de novo.”
   Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 288 (5th Cir. 2019).
          Credibility determinations are factual findings that are reviewed for
   substantial evidence. See Vidal v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 250, 254 (5th Cir. 2007).
   “An adverse credibility determination prevents [a petitioner] from satisfying
   her burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and
   protection under the CAT.” Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 772 (5th Cir.
   2020). On the basis of numerous inconsistencies in the petitioner’s
   testimony, the IJ in this case determined that Hernandez-Chan was not
   credible. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination on the basis of the record.
   We likewise agree. Although she presents explanations for the
   inconsistencies in her testimony, none of Hernandez-Chan’s arguments
   compels reversal. See id. at 768.
          On this basis and for the reasons articulated by the BIA, we find no
   error in the BIA’s decision and DENY the petition for review.

                                            2