Montano-Velasquez v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60470 Document: 00516820250 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
July 13, 2023
No. 22-60470 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Carlos Alfredo Montano-Velasquez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A202 078 389
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
The opinion in this case originally filed on May 15, 2023, is
WITHDRAWN and the following opinion is SUBSTITUTED in its
place.
Carlos Alfredo Montano-Velasquez, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60470 Document: 00516820250 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2023
No. 22-60470
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge
(IJ) finding him not credible and denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
We review for substantial evidence. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th
Cir. 2018); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
In the decision summarily adopted by the BIA, the IJ determined that
Montano-Velasquez was not credible in light of inconsistencies within his
testimony and with other evidence, material omissions on direct
examination, non-responsive answers to questions, evasive explanations for
the inconsistencies and omissions, and his agitated demeanor during
questioning. See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th Cir. 2020).
These specific and cogent reasons derived from the record support the
credibility determination, see Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at 767; Singh, 880 F.3d
at 225; Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344, and consideration of the record as a whole
does not show that “no reasonable fact-finder” could make such a
determination, see Singh, 880 F.3d at 225 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). The adverse credibility finding, standing alone, was a
sufficient basis for the BIA’s rejection of Montano-Velasquez’s claims for
asylum and withholding. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). He
also does not establish that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the
agency’s determination that he failed to show he more likely than not would
be tortured if repatriated. See Singh, 880 F.3d at 224-25; Ramirez-Mejia v.
Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015).
Finally, insofar as Montano-Velasquez conclusionally asserts that
former counsel provided ineffective assistance in several respects, we need
not consider these claims because he has not properly briefed them but
instead provides only conclusional assertions concerning them. See Fed. R.
App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2