Doh Noela v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60683 Document: 00516109628 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 29, 2021
No. 20-60683 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Njenu Doh Noela,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A213 327 544
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Njenu Doh Noela, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming
the denial by the immigration judge (IJ) of her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60683 Document: 00516109628 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2021
No. 20-60683
(CAT). Doh Noela does not argue, as she did before the BIA, that she was
wrongfully denied counsel in her hearing before the IJ. Accordingly, she has
abandoned this issue. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.
2003).
Through counsel, Doh Noela asserts that the IJ “cherry pick[ed]
minor inconsistencies” to reach an adverse credibility finding and that the
IJ’s credibility finding did not extend to certain issues that were not in dispute
during the trial, such as her identity as an indigenous person of the former
United Nations Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons. She contends that
the third-country transit bar that the IJ applied to her asylum claim has since
been vacated by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
and that she is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the CAT based on her past persecution, in the form of threats and
beatings, and her well-founded fear of future persecution, because of her
membership in that particular social group.
Regardless whether the third-country transit bar applies, Doh Noela’s
asylum claim would also be subject to the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. As to her challenge to the credibility determination, a
factfinder may rely on any inconsistencies in making a credibility
determination, and the inconsistencies need not go to the heart of the
petitioner’s claim. See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763-64 (5th Cir.
2020); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Moreover, although Doh Noela
contends that there is undisputed documentary evidence regarding her
ethnic identity, this evidence alone is not sufficient to demonstrate that she
is entitled to the requested relief. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-
45 (5th Cir. 2005). The BIA supported its determination with multiple
specific reasons based on the record, including: (1) Doh Noela’s testimony
that she blindly followed an unknown man at the airport during her escape
from Cameroon; (2) her inability to clearly explain how she was recruited by
2
Case: 20-60683 Document: 00516109628 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/29/2021
No. 20-60683
the Southern Cameroon National Council (SCNC) or when she attended
SCNC meetings; (3) the implausibility of her professed lack of knowledge
regarding the facility in which she was detained; (4) inconsistencies in her
testimony about whether she walked home after her 21-day detention; and
(5) the implausibility of her story about being beaten during her detention in
light of her failure to mention, until prompted by the IJ, any subsequent
wound care she received at the hospital. Doh Noela has not explained the
inconsistencies or implausible scenarios, refuted the IJ’s determinations
concerning affidavits that she provided, or shown that based on the “totality
of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make
such an adverse credibility ruling.” See Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at 767
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, the BIA’s
adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See
id.; Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538-39 (5th Cir. 2009). The adverse
credibility determination is fatal to all her claims as the factual basis for her
claims was the same and the denial of relief turned on the assessment of her
credibility. See Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1061 (5th Cir. 2020);
Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3