Wendoline v. Barr

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60112
Summary Calendar

ETENGENE WENDOLINE,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A216 217 987

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Etengene Wendoline petitions for review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the order of the
immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA
held that the IJ did not clearly err by finding Wendoline not credible based
upon, inter alia, her failures to (1) recount, either during her initial border

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60112 Document: 00515497709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2020

No. 19-60112
2

interview or in her I-589 application, that a police officer allegedly beat her in
2016 for educating others about the Southern Cameroons National Council
(SCNC), and (2) her failure to state during her initial border interview that she
belonged to the SCNC and was threatened and beaten in 2017 during a
political celebration. Because the BIA adopted and relied upon the IJ’s
decision, we may review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. See Efe v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002).
We review for substantial evidence the findings that Wendoline is not
credible, see Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-40 (5th Cir. 2009), and that she
is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. See Zhang v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under this standard, we may not
reverse a factual finding unless the evidence compels it. Wang, 569 F.3d at
536-37; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Wendoline must carry the burden of
demonstrating that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See Zhao v.
Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005).
The trier of fact must consider “the totality of the circumstances[] and
all relevant factors” in making a credibility determination. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The IJ and the BIA “may rely on any inconsistency or
omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality
of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.”
Wang, 569 F.3d at 538 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
(emphasis in original).
In arguing that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination, Wendoline neglects to cite the relevant legal authorities or
standard of review, nor does she provide the required citations to the parts of
the record she relies upon. See F
ED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A) and (B). In any
event, while Wendoline contends that she was not provided sufficient
Case: 19-60112 Document: 00515497709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2020

No. 19-60112
3

opportunities to address the identified inconsistencies, the record belies her
contentions; she fails to show that the credibility determination was not
supported by substantial evidence. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-40.
Given the adverse credibility determination and Wendoline’s failure to
identify with specificity any other record evidence supporting her claims for
asylum and CAT relief, she fails to show that the denials of those claims were
unsupported by substantial evidence. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. Because
Wendoline fails to show that she is entitled to asylum, she necessarily fails to
show that she is entitled to withholding of removal. See Efe, 293 F.3d at 906.
Wendoline’s petition for review is DENIED.
Case: 19-60112 Document: 00515497709 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2020