Case: 19-60903 Document: 00515959972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 30, 2021 No. 19-60903 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Pablo Sosa Pedro, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A215 916 944 Before Smith, Haynes, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Pablo Sosa Pedro, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He challenges the adverse credibility determination against him and contends that the BIA erred in dismissing his appeal from the denial of asylum, * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60903 Document: 00515959972 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2021 No. 19-60903 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We generally review only the BIA’s decision but will consider the underlying decision of the immigration judge (IJ) to the extent the BIA relied upon it, as was the case here. See Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, and factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020). To prevail under the substantial evidence standard, a petitioner must show “that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An adverse credibility determination is conclusive “unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Id. at 767 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Sosa Pedro disputes findings that his testimony was inconsistent with other evidence in the record regarding when his problems with the Cuban government began; his disclosure of travels outside of Cuba and explanation of why he did not seek asylum in those places; his account of a September 2018 incident with police; and whether he believed that he would be harmed in Cuba because of his race. On these points, Sosa Pedro’s arguments rely on a construction of the evidence that is not compelled by the record. A reasonable factfinder could interpret Sosa Pedro’s credible fear interview (CFI) and court testimony as being inconsistent regarding when his problems with the Cuban government started. Although his court testimony indicated that his problems began in about 2017 with his opposition to an abortion policy, he indicated in his CFI that his problems began when his sister left Cuba in 2009. Similarly, a reasonable factfinder could find that his decision to return to Cuba to seek a work visa, rather than apply for asylum 2 Case: 19-60903 Document: 00515959972 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/30/2021 No. 19-60903 in Europe, was inconsistent …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals