Machin Gonzalez v. Barr

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60035
Summary Calendar

ENRIQUE D. MACHIN GONZALEZ, also known as Enrique Daniel Machin,

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 567 087

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Enrique D. Machin Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the
denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Machin Gonzalez argues that the BIA
erred in (1) upholding the adverse credibility finding of the Immigration Judge
(IJ); (2) substituting its own credibility determination on appeal; (3) finding

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5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
January 29, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60035 Document: 00515289710 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2020

No. 19-60035
2
that he failed to prove his eligibility for asylum; (4) failing to fully analyze his
withholding of removal claim; and (5) finding that he failed to prove his
eligibility for protection under the CAT.
We review only the BIA’s decision, unless, as here, the IJ’s decision has
influenced the BIA’s decision. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir.
2009). Our review of findings of fact is for substantial evidence, and we will
not reverse a factual finding unless the petitioner demonstrates “that the
evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude
against it.” Id. at 537.
In light of the inconsistencies discussed by the IJ and the BIA, there is
substantial evidence supporting the adverse credibility finding, and the
evidence in the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Ghotra v.
Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 2019). We lack jurisdiction to consider
Machin Gonzalez’s challenge that the BIA substituted its own credibility
determination, because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See
Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2009). In light of the
reasonable adverse credibility finding, Machin Gonzalez has not met his
burden to establish eligibility for asylum. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d
182, 187–88 (5th Cir. 2004); see Chun v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).
Contrary to Machin Gonzalez’s argument, the BIA did not summarily conclude,
without analysis, that he could not establish his eligibility for withholding of
removal. See Ghotra, 912 F.3d at 290. Finally, in light of the adverse
credibility finding, Machin Gonzalez has not met his burden to establish
eligibility for protection under CAT. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658–59
(5th Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED IN PART and
DISMISSED IN PART.
Case: 19-60035 Document: 00515289710 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2020