Mang v. Gonzales , 162 F. App'x 336 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60603
Summary Calendar
JOHN NO HLAI MANG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 314 715
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John No Hlai Mang, a native and citizen of Burma, has
petitioned for review of an order to the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigrations judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of
removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). He also has moved for a stay of deportation.
In rejecting Mang’s applications, the BIA found that Mang
lacked credibility. This court generally reviews only the
decision of the BIA, not that of the IJ. Carbajal-Gonzalez v.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-60603
-2-
INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). Errors of the IJ are
considered only to the extent that they affect the BIA’s
decision. Id. Here, because the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s
decision, but issued its own decision, this court reviews the
decision of the BIA. See Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 666 (5th
Cir. 2002).
The BIA articulated cogent reasons, supported by substantial
evidence in the record, for rejecting Mang’s testimony as
incredible. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).
Absent credible testimony by Mang, substantial evidence supports
the BIA’s determination that Mang failed to establish that he was
eligible for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. Because
Mang makes only a conclusory statement that he is entitled to
relief under the CAT, he has shown no error in the BIA’s denial
of relief under the CAT. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907
(5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, his petition for review is DENIED.
In light of the disposition of Mang’s petition, his motion
for a stay of deportation also is DENIED.