WALLANG v. BARR (2019)

Chia Wallang, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of his application for asylum. Wallang asserts the BIA and Immigration Judge (IJ) erroneously rejected his claim of a well-founded fear of persecution.

We review the final decision of the BIA, but also review the IJ’s ruling insofar as it affected the BIA’s decision. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Findings of fact, including asylum eligibility, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013).

Although Wallang includes in his brief here, and makes claims regarding the 2017 United States State Department Report on Human Rights Practices in Cameroon, any assertions based on that report, which is not part of the administrative record, are not considered. See Hernandez-Ortez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 2014).

Wallang asserts he holds a political opinion that exposes him to likely persecution should he be returned to Cameroon, based on his alleged membership in the Southern Cameroon National Council (SCNC). Nevertheless, the evidence presented in the administrative record does not compel a finding under our circuit precedent that Wallang has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of any protected ground. See Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411; Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 189 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Tanyi v. Mukasey, 262 F. App'x 640 (5th Cir. 2008) (concluding record did not compel finding of well-founded fear of persecution based on political opinion in Cameroon); Mbeng v. Gonzales, 174 F. App'x 188, 193 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding petitioner could not establish well-founded fear based on membership in SCNC because it has “hundreds of thousands of members who participate in political activity without incident or persecution”).

DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.