United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 29, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60950
Summary Calendar
ELIZABETH NIGATU MESFIN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76 943 602
--------------------
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elizabeth Nigatu Mesfin petitions this court for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the
Immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her applications for
asylum and withholding of removal and for relief under the
Convention Against Torture. When, as here, the BIA summarily
affirms without opinion and essentially adopts the IJ’s decision,
we review the IJ’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302
(5th Cir. 1997).
Mesfin challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
upon which the denial of relief was based, asserting that the
credibility determination is not based on substantial evidence.
The evidence shows that Mesfin submitted a fraudulent birth
certificate, questionable identification documents for her father
purporting to show his Eritrean heritage, and questionable
testimony regarding her Ethiopian passport; it also indicates that
substantial portions of her testimony, based on information
provided by her mother, may be unreliable. Contrary to Mesfin’s
assertion, all of her testimony became suspect when the fraud was
revealed, not just the fact, date, and place of her birth or
identity. The record does not compel a credibility determination
contrary to the IJ’s, and this court therefore will not overturn
the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Lopez De Jesus v.
INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir. 2002); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78
(5th Cir. 1994). That being so, the petition for review is
DENIED. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906, 908 (5th Cir.
2002).
Mesfin also contends that the BIA’s procedure of summarily
affirming the IJ’s decision without opinion violated her due
process rights. This argument is without merit. Soadjede v.
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.
2