ISLAM v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Mohammad Ridwannul ISLAM, Petitioner, v. Robert M. WILKINSON, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 19-60721

Decided: February 19, 2021

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Khagendra Gharti Chhetry, Esq., Counsel, Chhetry & Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner Lynda A. Do, Arthur Rabin, Trial Attorney, Ubaid ul-Haq, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation - District Court Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Mohammad Ridwannul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, appeals his order of removal. He contends that an adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence. He further contends that he has proved his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims.

The Board of Immigration Appeals in this case affirmed an adverse credibility finding of the immigration judge. The immigration judge based this finding on observations such as conflicting statements, demeanor during testimony, and an apparent inability to provide details not already contained in a previously provided written statement.

We grant deference to an immigration judge's credibility determination. Wang v. Holder, 569 F. 3d 531, 536-38 (5th Cir. 2009). A credibility finding is proper if based on “any inconsistency or omission ․ as long as the totality of the circumstances” supports the finding. Id. at 538 (quoting Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008)) We will not reverse a credibility determination unless the evidence compels it. See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th Cir. 2020).

In this case, the immigration judge cited to several inconsistencies or omissions. Reviewing the record, we are not compelled to find that Islam was credible. See Id.

Argument regarding the merits of Islam's asylum and withholding claims is precluded by a lack of credible evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B); Chun v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). Islam failed to exhaust his Convention Against Torture claim by failing to brief it in his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.¹ Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider that claim. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 351 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

1.   The Board of Immigration Appeals noted that Islam failed to brief the Convention Against Torture issue, finding it waived. In our court, Islam does not challenge that conclusion, arguing only the merits of his CAT claim.

Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.