Arrey v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 23, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60036
Summary Calendar
AGNES TANYINOW ARREY,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A96 081 343
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Agnes Tanyinow Arrey petitions for review of the decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of
the immigration judge (IJ) that denied her application for
asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the
Convention against Torture (CAT). Arrey does not challenge the
determination that her asylum application was untimely, and she
has waived any challenge to this issue. See Rodriguez v. INS,
9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60036
-2-
Arrey does challenge the adverse credibility determination
that rendered her ineligible for withholding of removal and
relief under the CAT. “Credibility determinations are given
great deference. . . . [We] cannot replace the Board or IJ’s
determinations concerning witness credibility or ultimate factual
findings based on credibility determinations with [our] own
determinations.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir.
2002). To prevail, Arrey must show that the evidence compels a
contrary finding. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.
1994).
Arrey contends that the IJ improperly focused on
discrepancies in her name that were easily explained, that the IJ
made erroneous factual findings based on misunderstandings of her
testimony, that her failure to include parts of her story in her
asylum application should not be held against her, and that the
IJ should have given more weight to her documentary evidence.
Arrey has not shown that the evidence presented compels a
conclusion on credibility that is contrary to the one reached by
the IJ. See Chun, 40 F.3d at 79. Accordingly, we may not
reverse the IJ’s finding. See id.PETITION DENIED.