United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 6, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60885
Summary Calendar
SAI MOE AUNG,
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 910 250
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sai Moe Aung, a native and citizen of Myanmar (Burma), has
petitioned for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge
(IJ) denying Aung’s application for political asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). “Although this Court generally reviews decisions of the
BIA, not immigration judges, it may review an immigration judge’s
decision when, as here, the BIA affirms without additional
explanation.” Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-60885
-2-
2003). “[T]his Court must affirm the decision if there is no
error of law and if reasonable, substantial, and probative
evidence on the record, considered as a whole, supports the
decision’s factual findings.” Id. Under this standard, “the
alien must show that the evidence is so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Chun v. INS,
40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
Based on internal discrepancies in Aung’s testimony and
between Aung’s testimony and his written asylum application, the
IJ determined that Aung was not credible. An IJ’s findings on
credibility are accorded “great deference.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293
F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir. 2002).
Aung asserts that the IJ’s credibility determination is not
supported by substantial evidence. Aung, a former clothing
manufacturer, contends that he is fleeing from Burma to avoid
persecution because he contracted with relatives of the former
dictator Ne Win to manufacture military-style uniforms that were
to be used in an attempt to overthrow the government. Aung
contends that it was not reasonable for the IJ to require
corroboration of his testimony concerning his alleged conviction
in 2002 related to the attempted coup d’etat because such records
were not reasonably available to Aung. He contends that the
omission of certain facts from his asylum application should not
have been held against him because they were disclosed by Aung in
response to questioning at the evidentiary hearing and because
No. 05-60885
-3-
the omissions involved insignificant facts. Aung explains that
the discrepancies between his written statement and his testimony
regarding his involvement in the Shan National Army and the Shan
National Organization resulted from imprecision in translation.
As to discrepancies in the manner and timing of his learning of
the coup d’etat, Aung contends that the disparity was the result
of imprecision, rather than deceit.
The question presented is not whether the evidence could
have supported a different finding on the question of Aung’s
credibility but whether there was “reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence” supporting the IJ’s credibility finding.
See Moin, 335 F.3d at 418.
Under this deferential standard of review, the petition for
review must be denied. In support of his findings, the IJ
identified multiple discrepancies in Aung’s testimony and written
statement, many of which concerned matters that were central to
his claim that there was a nexus between his political opinions
and the government’s actions against him, i.e., the time and the
manner in which he learned of the coup d’etat and the fact that
the government was looking for him. Other discrepancies,
although involving facts not directly pertinent to his claim that
he had been and would be persecuted because of his political
opinions, tended to undermine Aung’s credibility generally. The
IJ could reasonably infer from Aung’s omission of facts from his
written statement regarding his role in the Shan National
No. 05-60885
-4-
Organization that Aung had embellished his testimony in order to
establish that he was politically active and politically
motivated. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
Aung consistently denied, in his written statement and in
his testimony, that he knew before the fact that he was making
uniforms in support of a coup attempt. The fact that Aung did
business with the coup leaders does not compel the conclusion
that Aung was persecuted or was subject to persecution on account
of one of the enumerated grounds in the Immigration and
Nationality Act. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482
(1992). At most, it shows that he associated with people who
were politically motivated.
The IJ’s decision denying the asylum application was
supported by substantial evidence. See Moin, 335 F.3d at 418.
Because of Aung’s failure to satisfy the more lenient standard
for asylum, Aung necessarily could not qualify for withholding of
removal. See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir.
2006). Because Aung has not shown that the IJ’s credibility
determination should be overturned, Aung cannot carry his claim
for relief under the CAT based on his testimony alone. See Efe,
293 F.3d at 907.
PETITION DENIED.