Jinghua Di v. Ashcroft , 85 F. App'x 976 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         January 9, 2004
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 02-61008
    Summary Calendar
    JINGHUA DI
    Petitioner
    v.
    JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Respondent
    * * * * * *
    Consolidated with
    * * * * * *
    No. 02-61014
    XING GANG LIU
    Petitioner
    v.
    JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Respondent
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Petition for Review of an Order
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A76-898-950
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
    No. 02-61008
    c/w/ No. 02 61014
    -2-
    The petitioners, Jinghua Di (Di) and her husband Xing Gang
    Liu (Liu) whose claims are dependent upon Di’s, are natives and
    citizens of the Peoples’ Republic of China.     They request review
    of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which
    affirmed the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) to deny their
    application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief
    under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).     Because the BIA
    employed the streamlined review process of 8 C.F.R.
    § 1003.1(a)(7), we review the IJ’s decision.      See Soadjede v.
    Ashcroft, 
    324 F.3d 830
    , 832 (5th Cir. 2003).
    The IJ based his decision to deny relief on his explicit
    findings that Di was not credible.     We do not “review decisions
    turning purely on the immigration judge’s assessment of the alien
    petitioner’s credibility.”      Chun v. INS, 
    40 F.3d 76
    , 78 (5th Cir.
    1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).     In light
    of the IJ’s explanation of the credibility determination, that
    determination was “a reasonable interpretation of the record,”
    and the evidence does not compel the conclusion urged by Di and
    Liu.    See 
    id. at 78-79.
    The petition for review is DENIED.
    PETITION DENIED.
    except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-61008, 02-61014

Citation Numbers: 85 F. App'x 976

Judges: King, Higginbotham, Wiener

Filed Date: 1/9/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024