United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 27, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60357
Summary Calendar
QI CHONG CHEN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76 505 669
Before GARWOOD, DEMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Qi Chen (“Chen”) petitions this court for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum and
withholding of deportation and for relief under the Convention
Against Torture.
When, as here, the BIA summarily affirms without opinion and
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision. Mikhael v.
INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Chen first argues that the
IJ erred in failing to state the applicable burden of proof for
asylum. Although not restated verbatim, it is apparent that the IJ
applied the correct standard. Therefore, the applicable standard
of proof was adequately set forth. See Ontunez-Tursios v.
Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002).
Chen argues that the IJ’s determination that his testimony was
not credible was error because the inconsistencies relied on by the
IJ were not central to his claim and therefore cannot provide the
basis for an adverse credibility determination. Chen has not
demonstrated that the record compels a conclusion contrary to that
of the IJ, and therefore has not provided a basis for this court to
replace the IJ’s determinations concerning credibility or ultimate
factual findings based on credibility determinations with its own
determinations. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
Because Chen’s credibility was impugned during the deportation
proceedings, the IJ could permissibly determine that his
uncorroborated testimony did not establish his asylum claim,
particularly where corroboration was readily available to Chen (if
his testimony were true). Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 584
(5th Cir. 1996); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a).
Our review of the record reveals that the IJ’s determination
that Chen failed to discharge his burden to demonstrate that he is
2
entitled to asylum is supported by substantial evidence. See 8
C.F.R. § 208.13(a). As Chen does not argue in his petition for
review that the IJ erred in denying his request for withholding of
deportation, the argument is deemed abandoned. Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Lastly, the burden of proof for withholding of removal under
the Convention Against Torture is a higher standard than that for
asylum. Failure to satisfy the less demanding asylum standard is,
a fortiori, a failure to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of
removal. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, Chen has not demonstrated that he is entitled to
relief under the Convention Against Torture. The petition for
review is therefore
DENIED.
3