Desta v. Ashcroft , 85 F. App'x 982 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 19, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60268
Summary Calendar
HAREGEWOIN MAMO DESTA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A75 356 010
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Haregewoin Mamo Desta petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration
judge’s (IJ’s) decision to deny her application for asylum and
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) as well as the BIA’s rejection of her claim under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Desta argues that the BIA
erred in determining that she had not established a well-founded
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60268
-2-
fear of future persecution or that it was more likely than not
that she would be tortured if she were returned to Ethiopia.
This court will uphold the factual findings that an alien is
not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal if those
findings are supported by substantial evidence. Chun v. INS, 40
F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). The substantial evidence
standard requires that the decision be based on the evidence
presented and that the decision be substantially reasonable.
Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The
BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the
record does not compel a contrary conclusion as to either Desta’s
INA claims or her CAT claim. See id. Accordingly, Desta’s
petition for review is DENIED.