United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
November 18, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60116
Summary Calendar
KISHORE PRASAD UPADHYAY, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an
Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals,
BIA No. A95 552 750
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kishore Prasad Upadhyay, his wife, and minor daughter, all natives and citizens of Nepal,
petition this court to review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming, without
opinion, the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioners claim that the IJ erroneously
concluded that Mr. and Mrs. Upadhyah were not credible and ignored substantial evidence that they
faced past and future persecution and torture based on Mr. Upadhyah’s political affiliation with the
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
1
Nepali congress. When, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, this court may review
the IJ’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
“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), and we “‘will not review decisions turning purely on
the [IJ’s] assessment of the alien petitioner’s credibility.’” Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.
1994). We will uphold a finding that an alien is not entitled to relief if that finding is supported by
substantial evidence. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2002). Under
substantial evidence review, we may not reverse a factual finding unless the evidence compels a
contrary conclusion. Chun, 40 F.3d at 78.
In this case, the IJ carefully detailed the inconsistencies, contradictions, and omissions
underlying the determination that Mr. and Mrs. Upadhyay were not credible. Based on the record,
we co nclude that the IJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and the record does not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Chun, 40 F.3d at 78. As to petitioners’ CAT claim, the record
does not compel the conclusion that Nepali government officials would inflict, instigate, consent to
or acquiesce in petitioners’ torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1).
PETITION DENIED.
2