Tejman Lama v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-60199 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: JWE , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 03/25/2013 [12-60199]
Date Filed: 01/31/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
January 31, 2013
Lyle W. Cayce
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A097 680 653
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Tejman Lama petitions for review of the decision by the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the order of the
Immigration Judge (IJ) denying withholding of removal based on a
determination that Lama’s testimony was not credible. As the BIA relied on the
IJ’s decision, we review both the IJ’s decision and the order of the BIA. See
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009); Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d
588, 593-94 (5th Cir. 2007).
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 01/31/2013
To the extent that he contends for the first time that he is eligible for
asylum, his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies by raising the issue
before the BIA precludes us from exercising jurisdiction over such a claim. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F .3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004).
Although he asserts in passing that the IJ violated his substantive due process
rights, Lama fails to brief this contention and thus waives it. See Chambers v.
Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Lama has not renewed any, and
therefore has abandoned all, of the other claims that he raised before the BIA
with the exception of his claim that the IJ erred by denying withholding of
removal relief based on an adverse credibility finding. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,
324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
We review for substantial evidence the decision to deny withholding of
removal and will not reverse unless the record compels it. Zhang v. Gonzales,
432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under the substantial-evidence standard,
factual findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” § 1252(b)(4)(B).
In claiming that his credibility was compromised because he was denied
the assistance of a Nepali translator, Lama does not address the BIA’s holding
that he had waived any such claim by explicitly conceding to proceed in English.
Consequently, he has abandoned any contention that the BIA erred by holding
that he waived that claim. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833. Even though he
asserts that the IJ improperly based the adverse credibility determination on,
inter alia, numerous inconsistencies in Lama’s testimony, “‘an IJ may rely on
any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination
as long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’” supports the determination. Wang,
569 F.3d at 538. Lama has failed to show that substantial evidence compels the
conclusion that the denial of withholding of removal was erroneous. See Zhang,
432 F.3d at 344. The petition for review is DENIED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?