United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 2, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-61158
Summary Calendar
ZHEN GUI ZHENG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A70 649 116
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Zhen Gui Zheng petitions this court for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) summary affirmance of the
immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision denying his petition for
asylum, the withholding of deportation, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Given the BIA’s summary
affirmance, the decision on review is the decision of the IJ.
See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 2003).
The Attorney General has the discretion to grant asylum to
any alien who is a refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158. An alien is
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-61158
-2-
considered a “refugee” if he is unable or unwilling to return to
his country because he has been subject to past persecution or
has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular group or
political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To be
eligible for the withholding of removal, an “alien must
demonstrate a ‘clear probability’ of persecution upon return.”
See Faddoul v. I.N.S., 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation
omitted). This standard requires a higher objective likelihood
of persecution than is required to establish eligibility for
asylum. Id. Thus, if an alien cannot satisfy the more lenient
burden of proof for asylum, he is necessarily precluded from
meeting the more stringent burden of proof for the withholding of
deportation. See, e.g., Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 306
(5th Cir. 1997). The CAT requires an alien to show “‘that it is
more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed
to the proposed country of removal.’” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d
899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002)(quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)).
Zheng argues that the IJ erred in rejecting his credibility
regarding his assertions of past persecution. This court will
not substitute its judgment for that of the IJ or BIA with
respect to witness credibility. Chun v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76, 78
(5th Cir. 1994). This court reviews an immigration court’s
findings regarding credibility to determine if they are supported
by substantial evidence in the record. Id. Under substantial
No. 04-61158
-3-
evidence review, this court may not reverse the BIA’s factual
findings unless the evidence not only supports a contrary
conclusion, but compels it. Id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
The IJ’s credibility determination was based on substantial
evidence in the record. The record shows that Zheng gave
inconsistent testimony about the events surrounding the Chinese
officials’ alleged demands that Zheng’s wife abort their second
child. In addition, Zheng’s wife’s affidavit contradicts Zheng’s
testimony concerning those events. The record also shows that
Zheng himself gave contradictory testimony about the alleged
destruction of his house following his refusal to be sterilized.
In sum, the record does not compel a reversal of the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination. See Chun, 40 F.3d at 78.
Zheng argues that he will suffer future persecution if he
returns of China. In light of the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination, Zheng cannot meet his burden of proving a well-
founded fear of future prosecution. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
339, 345 (5th Cir. 2005). We note that Zheng does not argue on
appeal that he is entitled to asylum based on his wife’s alleged
involuntary sterilization. See In re C-Y-Z, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915
(1997). Accordingly, any such argument is deemed abandoned. See
Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833.
Zheng has not met his burden of proof with respect to his
requests for asylum, the withholding of deportation, or relief
No. 04-61158
-4-
under the CAT. See Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 306, Efe, 293 F.3d at
907. Accordingly, his petition for review is DENIED.