Masih 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 January 24, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60126
Summary Calendar
ASTER MARIA NOOR MASIH,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 537 679
--------------------
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Aster Maria Noor Masih petitions for review of an order by
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of
the Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny her application for asylum and
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act
and her claim for withholding of removal under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Noor argues that the IJ erred in finding
that her testimony was not credible. She argues further that she
is entitled to asylum and withholding of removal because she will
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60126
-2-
be subjected to persecution and torture based on her religious
beliefs and activities if she is returned to Pakistan.
Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms without opinion
and essentially adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s
decision. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.
2002). The IJ articulated cogent reasons, supported by
substantial evidence in the record, for rejecting Noor’s
testimony as lacking credibility. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76,
79 (5th Cir. 1994). The record does not compel reversal of the
IJ’s adverse credibility determination and his concomitant
determination that Noor has not carried her burden of proving her
entitlement to asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under
the CAT. See Efe, 293 F.3d at 907; Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664,
666-67 (5th Cir. 2002).
Because the IJ’s finding that Noor’s testimony was not
credible is sufficient grounds for affirming the BIA’s decision,
we need not reach the IJ’s alternative ruling. See Chun, 40 F.3d
at 79.
PETITION DENIED.