Court Opinion

ID: 9394521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 18:00:22.917364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:00.702908
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60507        Document: 00516750275             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/15/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-60507
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     May 15, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Zheng Liqin,                                                                       Clerk

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A208 931 173
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judge.
   Per Curiam: *
         Zheng Liqin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
   Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing her appeal from an order of
   an Immigration Judge (IJ) finding her not credible and denying her
   application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
   Convention Against Torture (CAT).

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60507      Document: 00516750275           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/15/2023

                                     No. 22-60507

          We review for substantial evidence. E.g., Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d
   220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
   2005). Under that standard, Liqin “must show that the evidence was so
   compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it”.
   Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The IJ’s ruling is
   reviewed only to the extent it affected the BIA’s decision. E.g., Zhu v.
   Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007).
          In determining credibility, the IJ “may rely on any inconsistency or
   omission”.     Singh, 880 F.3d at 225 (citations omitted); 8 U.S.C.
   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). If the IJ determines the “totality of the circumstances”
   requires an adverse credibility finding, our court will defer to that finding so
   long as it is “supported by specific and cogent reasons”. Singh, 880 F.3d at
   225 (citations omitted).
          The BIA and IJ: identified multiple inconsistencies between Liqin’s
   testimony and other record evidence; noted omissions in the evidence; and
   found aspects of Liqin’s testimony implausible. Accordingly, the adverse
   credibility determination is supported by “specific and cogent reasons
   derived from the record”. Id. (citations omitted). Liqin fails to show the
   evidence compels a contrary result. See Carbajal-Gonzalez, 38 F.3d at 197.
          With the adverse credibility finding’s being proper, the evidence, as a
   whole, does not compel a finding she was eligible for asylum, withholding of
   removal, or CAT relief because she failed to present sufficient additional
   evidence to corroborate her testimony, nor, for CAT relief, to demonstrate,
   inter alia, she would be tortured if removed. E.g., Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954
   F.3d 757, 763–70 (5th Cir. 2020) (where petitioner’s testimony is incredible,
   failure to provide sufficient corroborating evidence may be “fatal to an
   alien’s application for relief”); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907–08 (5th Cir.

                                          2
Case: 22-60507     Document: 00516750275           Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/15/2023

                                    No. 22-60507

   2002) (CAT relief requires applicant show, inter alia, “it is more likely than
   not” she would be tortured if removed (citation omitted)).
          DENIED.

                                         3