Court Opinion

ID: 9394656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 00:00:47.415466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:01.502402
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60470        Document: 00516750985             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/15/2023

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

                                     ____________                               FILED
                                                                            May 15, 2023
                                      No. 22-60470                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                            Clerk
                                    ____________

   Carlos Alfredo Montano-Velasquez,

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A202 078 389
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Carlos Alfredo Montano-Velasquez, a native and citizen of El
   Salvador, 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 and denying his application for asylum,
   withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60470      Document: 00516750985           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/15/2023

                                     No. 22-60470

   We review for substantial evidence. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th
   Cir. 2018); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
           In the decision summarily adopted by the BIA, the IJ determined that
   Montano-Velasquez was not credible in light of inconsistencies within his
   testimony and with other evidence, material omissions on direct
   examination, non-responsive answers to questions, evasive explanations for
   the inconsistencies and omissions, and his agitated demeanor during
   questioning. See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th Cir. 2020).
   These specific and cogent reasons derived from the record support the
   credibility determination; see Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at 767; Singh, 880 F.3d
   at 225; Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344, and consideration of the record as a whole
   does not show that “no reasonable fact-finder” could make such a
   determination, see Singh, 880 F.3d at 225 (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted). Montano-Velasquez also fails to show that the evidence
   compels a conclusion contrary to the agency’s determination that he failed to
   show he more likely than not would be tortured if repatriated. See Singh, 880
   F.3d at 224-25; Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015).
           As to Montano-Velasquez’s contention that his counsel provided
   ineffective assistance with the I-589 application and general poor-quality
   work, he has failed to exhaust the claim by presenting it to the BIA in his brief
   on appeal or in a motion to reconsider; we thus lack jurisdiction to hear it.
   See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022); 8 U.S.C.
   § 1252(d)(1).     Similarly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Montano-
   Velasquez’s claim, raised for the first time in this court, of ineffective
   assistance of counsel on appeal. ECF 24, 12; Martinez-Guevara, 27 F.4th at
   359; § 1252(d)(1).
           The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
   part.

                                              2