Mboba v. Garland, No. 21-60001 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-60001 Document: 00516323524 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 18, 2022 No. 21-60001 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Willy Enoch Mboba, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A203 564 010 Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Willy Enoch Mboba, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) concluding that he was not credible and denying his * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-60001 Document: 00516323524 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2022 No. 21-60001 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Now, he argues that he is eligible for asylum and withholding because he was persecuted in the DRC due to his political opinion and has a wellfounded fear of future persecution were he to return. He does not meaningfully challenge the credibility determination, which is dispositive of his asylum and withholding claims, and thus has abandoned any challenge he may have had to it. See Jaco v. Garland, 24 F. 4th 395, 401 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). His failure to present any argument concerning the disposition of his CAT claim likewise results in the abandonment of this claim. See Jaco, 24 F. 4th at 401 n.1. Insofar as he raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, this court lacks jurisdiction over it because it was not exhausted. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004); 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252(d)(1). The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part for want of jurisdiction. 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.
