Obando-Loaisiga v. Bondi

Case: 25-60373 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-60373 March 9, 2026 Summary Calendar

Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Elias Ezequiel Obando-Loaisiga,

Petitioner, versus

Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent. ______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A212 989 546 ______________________________

Before Davis, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Elias Ezequiel Obando-Loaisiga, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after finding him Case: 25-60373 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2026

No. 25-60373 not credible. Because the BIA’s credibility determination is reviewed for substantial evidence, we will not disturb it unless the evidence “compels” a contrary conclusion.1

Obando-Loaisiga argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s credibility determination, urging that the IJ failed to account for the totality- of-the-circumstances standard set forth by us in cases such as Wang v. Holder.2 However, Obando-Loaisiga conceded there were “significant differences” between his testimony during the hearing and during his credible-fear interview about matters central to his claim. With that concession, and because the IJ was free to rely on any inconsistency in the record, Obando-Loaisiga has not shown that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion on credibility. That alone suffices to deny the petition for review as to his claims for asylum and withholding.3 We need not consider his arguments concerning the merits of these claims.4

Likewise, we review Obando-Loaisiga’s challenge to the denial of CAT protection for substantial evidence.5 This challenge fails because he relies only upon his own, non-credible testimony and general country- conditions evidence to show that he will be singled out for torture.6 The petition for review is DENIED.