United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 9, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60817
Summary Calendar
CHADI MOUSSA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A74-855-303
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Chadi Moussa petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) opinion that affirmed the decision of
the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Moussa asylum and
withholding of removal. Moussa contends that he established past
persecution by Hezbollah and that he has a well-founded fear of
persecution if he is forced to return to Lebanon. Moussa
contends that the IJ did not make an “actual credibility finding”
and, thus, that this court should not uphold the BIA’s denial of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60817
-2-
his claims on the ground that the IJ made a finding that his
testimony was not credibile.
We review the IJ’s decision because the BIA summarily
affirmed without opinion and essentially adopted the IJ’s
decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
We will uphold the IJ’s determination that Moussa is not eligible
for asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence. See
Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002).
The substantial evidence standard requires only that the IJ’s
“conclusion be based upon the evidence presented and be
substantially reasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). To reverse the IJ’s determination that Moussa
is not eligible for asylum, “the evidence presented must compel a
reasonable fact-finder to conclude that [he] suffered past
persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution
because of a protected ground.” Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 669
(5th Cir. 2002); see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84
(1992); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
We will not “review decisions turning purely on the [IJ’s]
assessment of the alien petitioner’s credibility.” Chun, 40 F.3d
at 78 (quotation and citation omitted). The IJ found various
discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence which lessened
the credibility of Moussa’s testimony. We will not disturb this
credibility finding. See Chun, 40 F.3d at 78-79.
No. 02-60817
-3-
After careful review of the briefs and the administrative
record, we conclude that the IJ’s credibility finding is
supported by substantial evidence. The IJ’s conclusion that
Moussa had failed to make an adequate showing of past persecution
and of fear of future persecution also is supported by
substantial evidence.
The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent
than the standard necessary for asylum and requires the alien to
make a showing that a “‘clear probability’” exists that he will
be persecuted if he is removed. Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 306.
Because Moussa did not make the required showing for asylum, he
was not eligible for withholding of removal. See id. at 306
& n.10.
PETITION DENIED.