Court Opinion

ID: 9408896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 00:00:40.473442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.563307
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60470           Document: 00516820250             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023

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

                                        ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                        July 13, 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: *
            The opinion in this case originally filed on May 15, 2023, is
   WITHDRAWN and the following opinion is SUBSTITUTED in its
   place.
            Carlos Alfredo Montano-Velasquez, a native and citizen of El
   Salvador, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

            _____________________
            *
                This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60470     Document: 00516820250          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                   No. 22-60470

   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.
   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). The adverse credibility finding, standing alone, was a
   sufficient basis for the BIA’s rejection of Montano-Velasquez’s claims for
   asylum and withholding. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). He
   also does not establish 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).
          Finally, insofar as Montano-Velasquez conclusionally asserts that
   former counsel provided ineffective assistance in several respects, we need
   not consider these claims because he has not properly briefed them but
   instead provides only conclusional assertions concerning them. See Fed. R.
   App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
   The petition for review is DENIED.

                                         2