Adamou v. Garland ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-60165     Document: 00516342088         Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/02/2022
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    June 2, 2022
    No. 21-60165
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                       Clerk
    Amdiya Adamou,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Agency No. A216 713 072
    Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Amdiya Amadou, a native and citizen of Niger, petitions for review of
    a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal
    from a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) concluding that she was
    ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
    Case: 21-60165       Document: 00516342088          Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/02/2022
    No. 21-60165
    Convention Against Torture (CAT). She challenges the BIA’s conclusion
    that she has not shown eligibility for asylum because she failed to show that
    she suffered past persecution or has a well-founded, objective fear of future
    persecution because of her sexual orientation as a lesbian.
    We review the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s decision to the extent it
    influenced the BIA. See Okpala v. Whitaker, 
    908 F.3d 965
    , 968-69 (5th Cir.
    2018). We ask only whether the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial
    evidence and not based on an error of law. See id.; Mikhael v. INS, 
    115 F.3d 299
    , 305 (5th Cir. 1997).
    We need not address Adamou’s assertion that she belongs to a
    particular social group because the IJ assumed that she did but based the
    decision on the lack of a showing of past or likely future persecution.
    Adamou’s conclusional assertions do not show that substantial evidence
    compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether she
    showed past persecution. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 
    520 F.3d 445
    , 448 n.1
    (5th Cir. 2008); see also Eduard v. Ashcroft, 
    379 F.3d 182
    , 187-88 n.4 (5th Cir.
    2004).
    By asserting that her sexual “behavior is institutionally criminalized
    under Sharia law” Amadou invites this court to conflate Sharia law with the
    law of Niger. However, she did not submit to the IJ any documents about
    Sharia law, let alone Sharia law in Niger. Moreover, there was objective
    evidence that, while homophobia and anti-gay discrimination are prevalent
    in Niger, the law of Niger does not criminalize sexual activity between adults
    of the same sex, and Adamou admitted that she did not seek help from
    governmental authorities after she was beaten by her then-partner’s father.
    The record thus fails to compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s that she
    has not shown that the government of Niger is unable or unwilling to help
    her.
    2
    Case: 21-60165      Document: 00516342088           Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/02/2022
    No. 21-60165
    Because Adamou does not show the requisite likelihood of
    persecution to establish eligibility for asylum, she cannot make the more
    difficult showing of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft,
    
    293 F.3d 899
    , 906 (5th Cir. 2002). We lack jurisdiction to review her
    unexhausted CAT claim. See Omari v. Holder, 
    562 F.3d 314
    , 318 (5th Cir.
    2009); see also Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 
    27 F. 4th 353
    , 360 (5th Cir.
    2022).
    Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and
    DISMISSED in part.
    3