West v. Ashcroft , 110 F. App'x 416 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 8, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60191
Summary Calendar
ANDREW WEST,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A78 239 125)
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Andrew West-Ebi petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) opinion that affirmed the decision of
the immigration judge denying him (1) asylum, (2) withholding of
removal, and (3) relief under the Convention Against Torture. As
West does not specifically challenge the immigration judge’s (IJ)
denial of his application for withholding of removal or his request
from relief under the Convention Against Torture, the issues are
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
deemed abandoned. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050,
1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
As for asylum, West contends that the IJ erred in finding
West’s testimony not credible and erred in requiring that he
provide documentary evidence in support of his application. We
shall uphold the IJ’s determination that West is not eligible for
asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence. Gomez-Mejia v.
INS, 56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir. 1995). We shall not substitute our
judgment for that of the BIA or the IJ with respect to findings of
credibility of witnesses or findings of fact based on credibility
determinations. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). A
credibility determination may be overturned only if doing so is
compelled by the record. Lopez De Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161
(5th Cir. 2002).
West has not demonstrated that the record compels a conclusion
contrary to that of the IJ. Therefore, he has not provided a basis
for us to replace the IJ’s determinations of credibility or
ultimate factual findings based on credibility determinations with
our own. As West’s credibility was impugned during the deportation
proceedings, the IJ did not err in requiring West to provide
corroborating evidence. Matter of S-M-J, 21 I. & N. Dec. 722, 725-
26 (BIA 1997); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a).
Our review of the record demonstrates that the IJ’s
determination that West failed to demonstrate his entitlement to
asylum is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 C.F.R. §
2
208.13(a). We therefore deny his petition for review. The
Respondent’s motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative,
to hold briefing in abeyance is denied.
PETITION DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE DENIED.
3