Krishna Sharma v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen

Case: 19-60121 Document: 00515318443 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 21, 2020 No. 19-60121 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk KRISHNA PRASAD SHARMA, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A209 164 734 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Krishna Prasad Sharma, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He alleged that he had been persecuted in the past by members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) and will likely suffer future persecution * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 19-60121 Document: 00515318443 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2020 No. 19-60121 and torture if returned to Nepal due to his political activities on behalf of the Nepalese Congress Party. We generally review only the decision of the BIA but will review the IJ’s decision where, as in this case, it affects the BIA’s analysis. Le v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 98, 104 (5th Cir. 2016). Determinations of ineligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under CAT are reviewed for substantial evidence. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). “Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal is improper unless we decide not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Sharma devotes the majority of his petition for review to the argument that the IJ erred in determining that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum by failing to show either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. However, he does not brief any argument challenging the IJ’s alternative denial of asylum as a matter of discretion and has therefore abandoned any such challenge. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). He also failed to exhaust any argument challenging the discretionary denial of asylum by raising it on appeal to the BIA; thus, we would lack jurisdiction to consider the issue even if not abandoned. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). Thus, the petition for review of the denial of asylum will be denied without reaching his arguments related to his underlying eligibility for such relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A); I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 428 n.5, 441 (1987). Regarding the denial of withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sharma failed to demonstrate a clear probability of persecution upon return ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals