United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 7, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60750
Summary Calendar
ZHU DI ZHANG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A77 316 786
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Zhu Di Zhang, a citizen of China, petitions for review of an
order from the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without
opinion, the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture. Zhang argues that the IJ erroneously concluded
that he was not credible and ignored his substantial evidence that
he faced persecution in China based on his religion.
Zhang initially told immigration authorities in sworn
statements that he came to the United States to work and that he
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
did not fear persecution on religious grounds. The IJ determined
that Zhang was not credible because the religious persecution claim
was fabricated and developed only after Zhang arrived in the United
States. The IJ concluded that Zhang’s application for asylum was
frivolous. The IJ rejected, as likewise unsupported, Zhang’s
claims for relief under the U.N. Convention against torture.
“We give great deference to an IJ's decisions concerning an
alien’s credibility.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.
2002). In this regard, we have made it emphatically clear that we
“will not review decisions turning purely on the immigration
judge’s assessment of the alien petitioner’s credibility.” Chun v.
I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). Based
on the record, we conclude that the IJ’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence and the record does not "compel[]" a contrary
conclusion. Id.
PETITION DENIED.
2