United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 25, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60187
Summary Calendar
ODILE META TSHILUMBA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 543 232
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Odile Meta Tshilumba, a native and citizen of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, petitions for review of an order from the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the
immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to deny her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ determined that
Tshilumba’s story was implausible and that her demeanor was not
that of a woman who had gone through the “horrendous problems”
about which she testified.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60187
-2-
Generally, we review the decision of the BIA and will only
consider the underlying decision of the IJ if it influenced the
BIA’s determination. Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341,
348 (5th Cir. 2002). When, as in this case, the BIA adopts the
IJ’s decision without a written opinion, we review the IJ’s
decision. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
The IJ has the duty to make credibility determinations of
witnesses. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). When an
IJ’s credibility determination is based on “a reasonable
interpretation of the record and therefore supported by
substantial evidence,” it will be upheld. Id. at 79. Moreover,
“a credibility determination may not be overturned unless the
record compels it.” Lopez De Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161
(5th Cir. 2002).
In addition to arguing the merits of her claims for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT, Tshilumba,
proceeding pro se, challenges the IJ’s credibility determination,
arguing that the IJ’s and BIA’s mindsets about her credibility
were predetermined and that the IJ’s determination that her
testimony was incredible was based on facts that were not
important to her asylum claim. Liberally construed, her brief
challenges several of the findings on which the IJ based his
credibility determination. However, Tshilumba’s challenges
concerning these findings lack merit. The IJ gave cogent reasons
for finding that Tshilumba was not credible, and his
No. 04-60187
-3-
determination that Tshilumba was not credible is amply supported
by the record. See Chun, 40 F.3d at 79. Furthermore, the IJ’s
reasons were based on facts central to Tshilumba’s claim, such as
her lack of knowledge about the political party for which she was
allegedly persecuted, the fact that she added her daughter to her
passport just before she was arrested, and the unlikelihood that
a person thought to be involved in the assassination of the
president could leave the country with relative ease. The record
does not compel a credibility determination contrary to that of
the IJ. See Lopez De Jesus, 312 F.3d at 161. Because the IJ’s
credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence,
we need not consider the IJ’s alternative holding that
Tshilumba’s testimony, if believed, did not demonstrate
eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, although it may
have demonstrated eligibility for protection under the CAT.
Tshilumba also argues that the IJ erred in personally asking
her questions that exceeded the scope of direct or cross
examination “on areas outside the basis for the asylum claim and
outside of any previous testimony.” However, the IJ is entitled
to “‘interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien.’”
Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 n.1 (5th Cir.
1986) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (recodified as 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(1))). Furthermore, to the extent that Tshilumba is
citing in support of her claim the IJ’s questioning concerning
where she was imprisoned, whether her daughter cried or made a
No. 04-60187
-4-
lot of noise at the airport, and the whereabouts of her husband,
such questions are not outside the realm of an asylum claim.
Accordingly, Tshilumba’s petition for review of the BIA’s
order is DENIED. The respondent’s motion for summary affirmance
in lieu of a response brief or, alternatively, for an extension
of time to file a response brief if this court denies the motion,
is DENIED.