El Hennawi v. Garland, No. 22-60373 (5th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 22-60373 Document: 00516647158 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ No. 22-60373 Summary Calendar ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 15, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Salah Said Omar El Hennawi, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. _____________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A095 127 514 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Salah Said Omar El Hennawi, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) ordering him removed to Egypt and denying his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We lack jurisdiction to consider his claim that the _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60373 Document: 00516647158 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2023 No. 22-60373 IJ failed to consider the evidence in the aggregate because it was not first presented to the BIA. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 35960 (5th Cir. 2022); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). His challenge to the determination that he was ineligible for CAT protection is reviewed for substantial evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). He has not shown that the evidence compels a conclusion that he more likely than not will be tortured if repatriated and thus has not met this standard. See Aviles-Tavera v. Garland, 22 F.4th 478, 486 (5th Cir. 2022); Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009). Additionally, there is no need to consider his remaining arguments concerning credibility and the admission of evidence. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 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.