Court Opinion

ID: 9915933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 01:00:40.903651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:02.203406
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60171        Document: 00517025943             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/08/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-60171
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                January 8, 2024
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Tamaz Metreveli,                                                                   Clerk

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A203 787 667
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Tamaz Metreveli, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions for review
   of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the denial of:
   asylum; 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: 23-60171      Document: 00517025943           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/08/2024

                                     No. 23-60171

          Metreveli contends the BIA erred in declining to review the
   immigration judge’s (IJ) adverse-credibility determination.           The BIA
   assumed without deciding that Metreveli’s testimony was credible but
   concluded on the merits that he did not qualify for asylum or withholding of
   removal because he failed to show past, or a well-founded fear of future,
   persecution. (Metreveli has forfeited, for failure to brief, any challenge to the
   BIA’s conclusion that he waived his CAT claim. See, e.g., Jaco v. Garland,
   24 F.4th 395, 401 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining unbriefed issues are
   forfeited).)
          Our court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s ruling
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531,
   536 (5th Cir. 2009). “We consider legal questions de novo, and we review
   the factual determination that an individual is not eligible for asylum or
   withholding of removal for substantial evidence.” Munoz-De Zelaya v.
   Garland, 80 F.4th 689, 693 (5th Cir. 2023). “Under the substantial evidence
   standard, reversal is improper unless we decide not only that the evidence
   supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.” Chen
   v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original)
   (citation omitted).
          Because the BIA did not reach the merits of the IJ’s adverse-credibility
   ruling, the credibility issue is not properly before our court and will not be
   considered. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general
   rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
   decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”); Martinez-De
   Umana v. Garland, 82 F.4th 303, 309 n.3 (5th Cir. 2023) (rejecting
   consideration of issues unaddressed by BIA).
          To qualify for asylum, Metreveli must show he is “unable or
   unwilling” to return to Georgia “because of persecution or a well-founded

                                          2
Case: 23-60171      Document: 00517025943          Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/08/2024

                                    No. 23-60171

   fear of persecution on account of” a statutorily protected ground, such as
   political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also Cabrera v. Sessions, 890
   F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir. 2018) (explaining statutory framework). A petitioner
   who establishes past persecution “is presumed to have a well-founded fear of
   future persecution”. Zhu v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 521, 528 n.6 (5th Cir. 2004).
   If petitioner cannot show past persecution, he must show a well-founded fear
   of future persecution by demonstrating “a subjective fear of persecution, and
   that fear must be objectively reasonable”. Chen, 470 F.3d at 1135 (citation
   omitted); see also Zhu, 382 F.3d at 528 n.6.
          Insofar as Metreveli challenges the BIA’s finding that he failed to
   demonstrate harm rising to the level of past persecution, he has not shown
   the evidence compels a contrary finding. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134
   (outlining standard of review). The incident where Metreveli was held at
   gunpoint and beaten—combined with the multiple threats he received to
   support the Georgian Dream Party or leave the country—is insufficient to
   demonstrate past persecution. See Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 395–99 (5th
   Cir. 2020) (collecting cases and affirming BIA’s determination that repeated
   death threats and attack resulting in injuries requiring stitches did not
   amount to past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
   finding that Metreveli’s fear of future persecution was not objectively
   reasonable. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1135 (outlining burden for well-founded
   fear of future persecution). His children remain in Georgia unharmed, and
   he was able to depart from, and return to, Georgia without incident during
   the claimed persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 193 (5th Cir.
   2004) (“[T]he reasonableness of an alien’s fear of persecution is reduced
   when his family remains in his native country unharmed for a long period of
   time after his departure”.); Ndulu v. Lynch, 643 F. App’x 345, 347–48 (5th
   Cir. 2016) (considering unobstructed departures and returns as evidence
   against well-founded fear of future persecution).

                                          3
Case: 23-60171      Document: 00517025943           Page: 4    Date Filed: 01/08/2024

                                     No. 23-60171

          Metreveli has not demonstrated eligibility for asylum and, therefore,
   has also failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See, e.g.,
   Munoz-Granados v. Barr, 958 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2020) (“[O]ne who fails
   to show entitlement to asylum fails to show entitlement to withholding of
   removal”.).
          DENIED.

                                          4