
    Mbunta Peter NKONGHO, Also Known as Peter Nkongho Mbunta, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-60606 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed October 25, 2017
    Randall L. Johnson, Esq., Johnson <& Associates, P.C., Vienna, VA, for Petitioner
    Laura M. L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    
      Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mbunta Nkongho, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was ordered removed for remaining in the United States longer than permitted. He petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his motions for reconsideration and to reopen.

First, Mbunta claims that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. He contends that he should not have been required to provide corroborating evidence of his claims; he was not put on notice that his adverse credibility determination would affect how his new testimony would be viewed; he was not provided with the opportunity to reconcile discrepancies in his testimony; the BIA failed to reconsider the prior decision in light of the country report; and the BIA failed to address his application for adjustment of status.

Next, Mbunta contends that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. He contends that the BIA failed to articulate the basis for rejecting the medical evidence submitted with the motion; the country conditions report buttressed his argument that he was persecuted and tortured; the BIA erroneously discounted the affidavits of family members and a neighbor; and his claim of future persecution was tainted by the adverse credibility finding.

Our review of the briefs and the record demonstrates that Mbunta has failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motions. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     