Gill v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60124
Summary Calendar
GURVINDER KAUR GILL; JASMIN GILL,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 567 224
BIA No. A78 567 225
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gurvinder Kaur Gill (“Gill”), a citizen of India, and Jasmin
Gill (“Jasmin”), Gill’s minor daughter, petition for review of an
order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing
their appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny
their applications for asylum, withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and withholding of
removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60124
-2-
Jasmin’s claims are dependent upon Gill’s claims, only Gill’s
claims require consideration.
Gill contends that the BIA erred by finding that she did not
establish her eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal
under the INA and CAT. Gill’s application for asylum was denied
as untimely. Because Gill has failed to address the timeliness
of her asylum application in her instant petition, that issue is
waived. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir.
1993). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Gill’s
testimony alleging past persecution and fear of future
persecution was not credible. As Gill has failed to show
anything in the record compelling this court to overturn the
BIA’s credibility determination, that credibility determination
cannot be overturned. See Lopez De Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155,
161 (5th Cir. 2002). Gill has therefore failed to show that the
BIA’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. See
Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Moreover,
even if Gill’s testimony was deemed to be credible, the record
does not compel a finding that she met her burden to warrant
withholding of removal under the INA or the CAT. See Bah v.
Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2003); Mikhael, 115 F.3d at
302.
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.