United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 3, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60932
Summary Calendar
ASHIF NAWAZ MUHAMMAD,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 383 604
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ashaf Nawaz Muhammad, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s
(IJ) decision to deny his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). The BIA also determined that the record supported the
IJ’s determination that Muhammad filed a frivolous asylum
application.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60932
-2-
Muhammad challenges the credibility determinations made by
the IJ and the BIA. He contends that he has been the victim of
past persecution on account of his political opinion and that he
has a well-founded fear of future persecution in Pakistan. He
maintains that he is eligible for asylum or, in the alternative,
withholding of removal and relief under the CAT.
“Credibility determinations are given great deference.” Efe
v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir. 2002). This court
“cannot substitute [its] judgment for that of the BIA or IJ with
respect to the credibility of the witnesses or ultimate factual
findings based on credibility determinations.” Chun v. INS, 40
F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Rather, “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)
(footnote omitted).
Muhammad contends that the discrepancies between his
testimony and his written asylum application are attributable to
his former attorney. He contends that the documentary evidence
supports his claims.
There is a presumption that an applicant who signs an asylum
application is aware of the contents of the application. See
8 C.F.R. § 208.3(c)(2). Moreover, Muhammad told the IJ that he
had reviewed his asylum application, and he swore that the
information contained in the application was true and correct.
The adverse credibility determinations made by the IJ and the BIA
No. 04-60932
-3-
are supported by the record. See Chun, 40 F.3d at 79. The
record thus does not compel a credibility determination contrary
to that of the IJ and the BIA. See Lopez De Jesus, 312 F.3d at
161.
To the extent that Muhammad has briefed an argument
challenging the determination that he filed a frivolous asylum
application, Muhammad fails to show error. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(d)(6). Accordingly, Muhammad’s petition for review of the
BIA’s order is DENIED.