Court Opinion

ID: 9955290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 00:00:34.980538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:25.458647
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60208           Document: 43-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024

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

                                  ____________                                FILED
                                                                        March 27, 2024
                                   No. 23-60208                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                 Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                 ____________

Seng Xiong,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                         versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                             Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A022 479 141
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      Seng Xiong, a native and citizen of Laos, whose ethnicity is Hmong,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) upholding
the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). The BIA determined, inter alia, that Xiong failed to

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60208       Document: 43-1        Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                 No. 23-60208

show the requisite individualized risk of torture for deferral of removal under
the CAT.
       Our court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d
812, 815 (5th Cir. 2017). The BIA’s factual determination that an individual
is not eligible for CAT protection is reviewed under the substantial-evidence
standard. E.g., Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006)
(outlining standard). Under this standard, petitioner “has the burden of
showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
could reach a contrary conclusion”. Id. Our court has jurisdiction to review
the denial of CAT protection regardless of Xiong’s fraud convictions. See
Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 579–81 (2020) (outlining jurisdictional
framework for reviewing CAT-relief denials).
       Xiong’s testimony that he would be immediately detained in Laos and
suffer torture can reasonably be viewed as speculative.         A reasonable
factfinder could conclude, as the IJ and BIA did, that such testimony was
insufficient to show he would more likely than not be tortured if removed to
Laos. E.g., Morales, 860 F.3d at 818 (rejecting other “permissible view of the
evidence” contention). Xiong’s documentary evidence also does not compel
the conclusion he demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of torture.
See id. (determining news articles and reports were too general to show
likelihood of torture to applicant); Chen, 470 F.3d at 1140–41 (determining
generalized reports about torture in detention centers did not compel
conclusion that applicant would likely be detained and tortured). In the light
of the record, Xiong fails to show the requisite evidence compelling a
contrary conclusion. See Morales, 860 F.3d at 818; Chen, 470 F.3d at 1140–
41.

                                       2
Case: 23-60208       Document: 43-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                 No. 23-60208

       Although Xiong also contends the denial of CAT protection based on
insufficient evidence was reversible legal error, the contention is unavailing.
Despite his phrasing the contention in legal terms, Xiong’s disagreement
with the weighing of the evidence does not present a question of law. See,
e.g., Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 255 (5th Cir. 2023) (rejecting
petitioner’s attempt to rephrase contention as question of law).
       Finally, Xiong contends the BIA’s decision should be reversed
because it conflicts with the Department of Homeland Security’s alleged
conclusion that he should not be sent back to Laos. Xiong arguably forfeited
this contention by inadequate briefing. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A)
(requiring brief to contain “contentions and the reasons for them, with
citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant
relies”). In any event, he fails to show evidence compelling a conclusion
contrary to the BIA’s. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134.
       DENIED.

                                      3