Meiqi Wu v. Ashcroft , 85 F. App'x 389 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 14, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60505
Summary Calendar
MEIQI WU,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 400 321
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Meiqi Wu petitions this court for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum and
withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Wu
argues that the immigration judge erred in finding that he was
not credible. He contends that the Board of Immigration Appeals
should not have deferred to the immigration judge’s adverse
credibility finding. Wu argues that this court should reverse
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60505
-2-
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order because he suffered past
persecution on account of his imputed political opinion.
Furthermore, Wu argues that the immigration judge erred in
denying him relief pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention
Against Torture. Wu declares that it is more likely than not
that he will suffer torture at the hands of government
authorities upon his removal to China.
The immigration judge’s determination that Wu was not
credible is “a reasonable interpretation of the record and
therefore supported by substantial evidence.” See Chun v. INS,
40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). “Without credible evidence, the
BIA had no basis upon which to grant asylum.” Id. Wu has not
made the necessary showing to obtain relief under the Convention
Against Torture. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th
Cir. 2002). Wu’s petition for review is DENIED.