Court Opinion

ID: 9929669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 01:00:35.270552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:41:53.645666
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60235         Document: 00517054342             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/02/2024

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

                                       No. 23-60235
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                 February 2, 2024
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   Lingling Zheng,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A209 383 986
                      ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Lingling Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a
   decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal
   and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her application for
   asylum and withholding of removal. The denial of asylum and withholding
   of removal are the only issues before us because Zheng does not challenge the

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60235        Document: 00517054342        Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                    No. 23-60235

   BIA’s determination that she waived any challenge to denial of her request
   for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Soadjede v.
   Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). The BIA’s affirmance on the
   asylum and withholding of removal claims was based on its affirmance of the
   IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
          We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to
   the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th
   Cir. 2018). Because the BIA’s determinations that Zheng was incredible and
   ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal are reviewed for substantial
   evidence, we should not disturb them unless the evidence compels a contrary
   conclusion. Singh, 880 F.3d at 224-25; Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 818
   (5th Cir. 2017).
          The BIA “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.” Avelar-Oliva v. Barr,
   954 F.3d 757, 768 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Here, Zheng does not
   challenge the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s finding that Zheng failed to provide
   a persuasive explanation for the irreconcilable differences between her
   border interview and her testimony and asylum statement regarding her
   travels from China to the United States. She has thus forfeited review of that
   credibility finding. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833. Because the BIA may rely
   on any inconsistency and the totality of the circumstances support its
   determination that Zheng was not credible, Zheng’s challenge to the adverse
   credibility determination is unavailing.
          In sum, we uphold the adverse credibility determination,
   notwithstanding Zheng’s claim that the IJ made inconsistent credibility
   findings, which is meritless. See Singh, 880 F.3d at 225. That adverse

                                         2
Case: 23-60235     Document: 00517054342           Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                    No. 23-60235

   credibility finding, in turn, suffices to deny Zheng’s claims for asylum and
   withholding of removal. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597 (5th
   Cir. 2021); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). There is thus no need
   to consider her remaining arguments concerning such relief, including her
   arguments that the BIA erred in not addressing the merits of her claims and
   her challenge to the IJ’s admission of and reliance upon a magazine article
   over her objection. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a
   general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues
   the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                         3