Matute-Vallecillo v. Blanche

Case: 25-60481 Document: 79-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit _____________ FILED May 14, 2026 No. 25-60481 Lyle W. Cayce consolidated with Clerk No. 25-60596 Summary Calendar _____________ Miljanic Alexander Matute-Vallecillo, Petitioner, versus Todd Wallace Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A213 073 332 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Miljanic Alexander Matute-Vallecillo, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-60481 Document: 79-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2026

25-60481 c/w No. 25-60596 Against Torture (CAT). The Government moves for summary disposition and alternatively requests additional time to file an appellate brief. Matute- Vallecillo opposes summary disposition.

Matute-Vallecillo argues the BIA committed legal error when it affirmed the IJ’s finding that he was not a credible witness and therefore ineligible for withholding of removal. He has not shown any error in the credibility ruling and, thus, this finding is dispositive of his withholding claim.

See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 764, 767 (5th Cir. 2020); Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 2012).

We also find no merit in Matute-Vallecillo’s argument that the BIA erred by not applying the governing standard for previously unavailable evidence that he submitted with a motion to remand. See Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014). Finally, Matute-Vallecillo argues that the BIA did not fully consider his CAT claim and impermissibly considered the IJ’s adverse credibility finding in that analysis, but the record belies that challenge. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597-98 (5th Cir. 2021).

The Government’s motion is DENIED, and we DISPENSE with further briefing. The petition for review is DENIED.