Wirney Mulet Perez v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen, No. 20-60355 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-60355 Document: 00515670096 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 20-60355 Summary Calendar FILED December 11, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Wirney Mulet Perez, Petitioner, versus William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A203 741 142 Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Wirney Mulet Perez is a native citizen of Cuba who entered the United States without authorization and claimed a fear of returning to Cuba due to his membership in the CID political party. Now, Mulet Perez petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60355 Document: 00515670096 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2020 No. 20-60355 Appeals (BIA) that: (1) concluded that he failed to obtain reasonably available corroborating evidence and (2) dismissed his appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. This court reviews only the BIA’s decision “unless the IJ’s decision has some impact on the BIA’s decision.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Those parts of the IJ’s decision that were not adopted by the BIA are not before this court, and we need not consider Mulet Perez’s arguments concerning them. See id.; see also Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020). “Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 585, 587 (5th Cir. 2011). This court will affirm the BIA’s determinations “with respect to the availability of corroborating evidence unless the court finds a reasonable trier of fact is compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.” Yang, 664 F.3d at 587 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The record here shows that Mulet Perez obtained some corroborating evidence and does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination that he could have obtained more. See id. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
