Court Opinion

ID: 9412909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 22:00:37.544887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:32.236885
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60026     Document: 00516841825         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/01/2023

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

                                  No. 23-60026
                                                                            FILED
                                                                       August 1, 2023
                                Summary Calendar
                                ____________                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
   Rizwan Rahim Bhai Sunesara,

                                                                       Petitioner,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                     Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A200 945 187
                  ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Rizwan Rahim Bhai Sunesara, a native and citizen of India, petitions
   this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordering
   him removed, finding him not credible, and denying his application for

          _____________________
          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-60026         Document: 00516841825            Page: 2      Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                         No. 23-60026

   asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
   Torture (CAT). Because the BIA’s determinations concerning credibility
   and CAT relief are reviewed for substantial evidence, we will not disturb
   them unless the evidence “compel[s]” a contrary conclusion. Singh v.
   Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224-25 (5th Cir. 2018). Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
   339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
          Sunesara fails to address, and thus abandons any challenge he may
   have had to, the BIA’s determination that he had not shown he was part of
   the Mendez Rojas 1 class and his asylum application was thus statutorily
   barred. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). His
   general argument that the inconsistencies amongst his testimony, credible
   fear interview, applications and statements were minor and concerned
   temporally remote events does not show that the evidence compels a
   conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether he was credible.
   See Singh, 880 F.3d at 224-25; see Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th
   Cir. 2020). The adverse credibility finding, standing alone, suffices to deny
   his withholding claim. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994);
   Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597-98 (5th Cir. 2021). We thus decline
   to consider his remaining arguments concerning this form of relief. See INS
   v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam). He fails to brief, and has
   thus abandoned any challenge he may have had to, the BIA’s rejection of his
   CAT claim. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833. Finally, although he mentions due
   process in connection with the denial of a continuance, he raises no
   arguments related to this concept and thus has not raised a viable due process
   claim. See id.; Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). The petition for review is
   DENIED.

          _____________________
          1
              Mendez Rojas v. Johnson, 305 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (W.D. Wash. 2018).

                                                   2