United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 9, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-61094
Summary Calendar
JOHN JEFFERY FERENDEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76-334-421
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Jeffery Ferendez (“Ferendez”), a citizen of Singapore,
petitions for review of the final order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ denied Ferendez’s application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-61094
-2-
Ferendez argues that this court should apply a less
deferential standard to the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s findings
because the BIA issued no opinion and because the decision was
made by a single board member. This argument lacks merit. See
Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003).
Ferendez argues that the IJ erred in determining that his
testimony was not credible. The IJ found that Ferendez was not
credible because his testimony was inconsistent with the State
Department’s 1998 country report on Singapore and because he gave
false information to an Immigration Officer in order to avoid
apprehension. The IJ’s credibility finding is a reasonable
interpretation of the record and is supported by the record.
Therefore, this court will not reverse this finding. See Chun v.
INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
Ferendez contends that he qualifies for asylum because the
record supports his assertion that he endured persecution because
of his opposition to the Singapore government. After reviewing
the record and the briefs, we conclude that the BIA’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence in the
record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992); Mikhael v. INS, 115
F.3d 299, 302-304 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Ferendez has not made
the requisite showing for asylum, he was not eligible for a
withholding of removal. Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 306 & n.10.
No. 02-61094
-3-
Finally, Ferendez argues that the IJ erroneously denied
withholding of removal under the CAT. Considering the evidence
presented, the record does not compel the finding that Ferendez
met his burden to show that it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured in Singapore.
Accordingly, Ferendez’s petition for review is DENIED.