Ibraahim Ibro v. Jefferson Sessions, III, No. 16-60623 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-60623 Document: 00514191118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-60623 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 11, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk IBRAAHIM MUHAMMAD IBRO, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 379 463 Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ibraahim Muhammad Ibro, a native and citizen of Ethiopia who entered the United States without admission or parole, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). With respect to his asylum and withholding-of-removal claims, Ibro challenges the immigration judge’s 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-60623 Document: 00514191118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2017 No. 16-60623 finding that his testimony was not credible, but he fails to show that it is plain from the totality of the circumstances that “no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The BIA found it unnecessary to review the merits of his claims apart from the adverse credibility finding, which was fatal to the claims. Likewise, we conclude that the denial of relief turned on the assessment of Ibro’s credibility. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). In addition, Ibro challenges the adverse credibility determination in the context of his CAT claim. Again, he has not shown that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005). PETITION 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.
