Ricketts v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60806 Document: 00515935239 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 13, 2021
No. 20-60806
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Junior Ricketts,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A027 024 434
Before Haynes, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Junior Ricketts petitions this court to review the administrative
reinstatement of his prior order of removal. He challenges the determination
by the immigration judge (IJ) that he was not credible and thus had not
established a clear probability of persecution or torture if he were returned to
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60806 Document: 00515935239 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
No. 20-60806
Jamaica. Before this court, Ricketts contends that the asylum officer who
conducted his reasonable fear interview failed to provide reasons for
determining that he was not credible. He maintains that the IJ failed to give
adequate weight to his corroborating evidence. Ricketts asserts that the
IJ should have accepted his consistent testimony about the assaults and
torture he suffered in Jamaica and that his prior assertions of United States
citizenship did not call into question his credibility because he truly believed
he was a citizen, even though the agency and the federal courts had ruled
otherwise. He insists that he should be allowed to seek relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT) because a lack of credibility does not
foreclose a request for such relief.
We review a factual finding that an alien is ineligible for withholding
of removal or relief under the CAT for substantial evidence. Zhang
v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). 1 “An IJ may rely on any
inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as
long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant
is not credible.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). We will “defer therefore to an IJ’s
credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is
plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility
ruling.” Id.Ricketts has not shown that the record compels a finding that his
testimony and evidence were credible. Id. at 537. Contrary to his
contentions, the asylum officer provided reasons for determining that
Ricketts was not credible. Moreover, the credibility determination was
1
The respondent suggests that a more deferential “facially legitimate and bona fide
reason” standard of review should apply. We decline to address this issue because Ricketts
is not entitled to relief under the substantial evidence standard.
2
Case: 20-60806 Document: 00515935239 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/13/2021
No. 20-60806
supported “by specific and cogent reasons derived from the record.” Zhang,
432 F.3d at 344. Accordingly, Ricketts’s petition for review is DENIED.
3