Court Opinion

ID: 9366473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 19:00:43.977165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:52.662114
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60292        Document: 00516623666             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/26/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-60292
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                               January 26, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Rodolfo Jose Ordenana Mercado,                                                    Clerk

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A096 331 766
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Rodolfo Jose Ordenana Mercado, a native and citizen of Nicaragua,
   petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing the appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of withholding of
   removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60292       Document: 00516623666         Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/26/2023

                                    No. 22-60292

            We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s underlying
   decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision, as it did here. See Sharma v.
   Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings of fact, including the
   denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection, are reviewed under
   the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th
   Cir. 2006).      Credibility determinations are also reviewed under the
   substantial evidence standard. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir.
   2009).     Under this standard, we may not reverse unless the evidence
   “compels” such a reversal—i.e., the evidence must be “so compelling that
   no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Chen, 470 F.3d
   at 1134. It is the petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that the evidence
   compels a contrary conclusion. Id. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
   Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411.
            Ordenana    Mercado     incorrectly    argues    that     because    the
   inconsistencies between his testimony and the record were not material to his
   claims for relief, they were not grounds for an adverse credibility
   determination. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538 (holding that an IJ may rely
   on any inconsistency in determining credibility). He does not attempt to
   argue that the totality of circumstances compels a reversal of the IJ’s
   credibility determination. See id. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
   affirmance of the IJ’s credibility determination and the dismissal of Ordenana
   Mercado’s withholding of removal claim as a result.              See id.; see also
   Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding that adverse
   credibility can be dispositive of an asylum claim); Ndifon v. Garland, 49 F.4th
   986, 988-89 (5th Cir. 2022) (treating withholding of removal claims similarly
   within this context).
            Ordenana Mercado’s argument regarding his CAT claim that the BIA
   failed to consider country conditions evidence and relied solely on his adverse
   credibility similarly fails. See Ndifon, 49 F.4th at 989. The BIA stated that

                                         2
Case: 22-60292      Document: 00516623666           Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/26/2023

                                     No. 22-60292

   the IJ found that Ordenana Mercado “did not present independent evidence
   that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured in Nicaragua by or
   with the acquiescence of a public official”; the BIA did not state that he failed
   to present independent evidence at all. See id. at 989-90 (finding that BIA did
   not consider country conditions evidence where it stated that the petitioner
   did not point to other objective evidence to support his CAT claim). The
   BIA also affirmed the IJ’s decision for the reasons stated in his order, wherein
   the IJ explicitly held that the country conditions evidence submitted by
   Ordenana Mercado failed to show “how it is more likely than not that he will
   be placed personally at risk of torture.” Thus, Ordenana Mercado has not
   shown that the BIA failed to consider his country conditions evidence. See
   id. Finally, Ordenana Mercado has failed to show that the record compels a
   reversal of the BIA’s determination that he is not entitled to CAT protection.
   See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134.
          Accordingly, Ordenana Mercado’s petition for review is DENIED.

                                          3