eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-05

Liqin v. Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 22-60507        Document: 00516750275             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/15/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60507
Summary Calendar                                   FILED
____________                                     May 15, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Zheng Liqin,                                                                       Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A208 931 173
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judge.
Per Curiam: *
Zheng Liqin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing her appeal from an order of
an Immigration Judge (IJ) finding her not credible and denying her
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT).
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60507      Document: 00516750275           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/15/2023
No. 22-60507
We review for substantial evidence. E.g., Singh v. Sessions,
    880 F.3d 220
    , 224 (5th Cir. 2018); Zhang v. Gonzales,
    432 F.3d 339
    , 344 (5th Cir.
2005). Under that standard, Liqin “must show that the evidence was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it”.
Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS,
    78 F.3d 194
    , 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The IJ’s ruling is
reviewed only to the extent it affected the BIA’s decision. E.g., Zhu v.
Gonzales,
    493 F.3d 588
    , 593 (5th Cir. 2007).
In determining credibility, the IJ “may rely on any inconsistency or
omission”.     Singh,
    880 F.3d at 225
     (citations omitted);
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (b)(1)(B)(iii). If the IJ determines the “totality of the circumstances”
requires an adverse credibility finding, our court will defer to that finding so
long as it is “supported by specific and cogent reasons”. Singh,
    880 F.3d at 225
     (citations omitted).
The BIA and IJ: identified multiple inconsistencies between Liqin’s
testimony and other record evidence; noted omissions in the evidence; and
found aspects of Liqin’s testimony implausible. Accordingly, the adverse
credibility determination is supported by “specific and cogent reasons
derived from the record”.
    Id.
     (citations omitted). Liqin fails to show the
evidence compels a contrary result. See Carbajal-Gonzalez, 38 F.3d at 197.
With the adverse credibility finding’s being proper, the evidence, as a
whole, does not compel a finding she was eligible for asylum, withholding of
removal, or CAT relief because she failed to present sufficient additional
evidence to corroborate her testimony, nor, for CAT relief, to demonstrate,
inter alia, she would be tortured if removed. E.g., Avelar-Oliva v. Barr,
    954 F.3d 757
    , 763–70 (5th Cir. 2020) (where petitioner’s testimony is incredible,
failure to provide sufficient corroborating evidence may be “fatal to an
alien’s application for relief”); Efe v. Ashcroft,
    293 F.3d 899
    , 907–08 (5th Cir.
2
Case: 22-60507     Document: 00516750275           Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/15/2023
No. 22-60507
2002) (CAT relief requires applicant show, inter alia, “it is more likely than
not” she would be tortured if removed (citation omitted)).
DENIED.
3