Kumar v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: January 6, 2023
• Docket: 22-60128
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-60128 Document: 00516601724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED January 6, 2023 No. 22-60128 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________

Vijay Kumar,

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent. ______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A209 157 570 ______________________________

Before Davis, Smith, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Vijay Kumar, a native and citizen of India, timely petitions us for re- view of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his past and future persecution asylum claims. On petition for review of a BIA decision, this court reviews factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60128 Document: 00516601724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2023

No. 22-60128

v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). The substantial-evidence standard applies to review of decisions denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). This standard requires that the BIA’s conclusion be based on the evidence presented and that its decision be substantially reasonable. Id. Under this standard, reversal is improper unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). We are not compelled to find that the harm Kumar experienced in the past is persecution. See Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2020); see also Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2017). To the extent he argues that the Board did not consider psychological harm, this argument is unexhausted. See Lopez-Dubon v. Holder, 609 F.3d 642, 644 (5th Cir. 2010). The fear of future persecution arguments are also unexhausted. Id. DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.