United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 17, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60112
Summary Calendar
OPHILIA BIH ASANGA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A96 088 942
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ophilia Bih Asanga, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ)
denial of her application for asylum.
Asanga argues that the IJ’s credibility findings concerning
her demeanor, documents, and answers are conclusions not based upon
facts and that the IJ erroneously determined that she did not
suffer past persecution and did not have a well-founded fear of
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
future persecution.
Asanga’s asylum claim is based on three alleged arrests and
beatings prompted by Asanga’s membership and participation in
political organizations that protested human rights abuses in
Cameroon. We conclude from a review of the record that the BIA’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence that Asanga’s
testimony and evidence lacked credibility. See Chun v. INS,
40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the findings regarding the
untrustworthiness of Asanga’s testimony are supported by
substantial evidence, this court cannot replace the BIA’s
credibility determinations with its own. See Efe v. Ashcroft,
293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir. 2002).
The adverse credibility determination caused the BIA to doubt
the evidence of past torture allegedly inflicted upon Asanga, to
find questionable her explanation of human rights violations
occurring in Cameroon, and to discredit all of the corroborating
evidence she offered. See Chun, 40 F.3d at 79. Because Asanga
failed to provide any credible evidence in support of her claims of
persecution, she failed to provide the necessary specific, detailed
facts, showing that she was singled out for persecution because of
her political opinions or memberships, that her three beatings rose
to the level of persecution, or that she possessed a well-founded
fear of future persecution. See Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d
343, 349-50 (5th Cir. 2006); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304-05
(5th Cir. 1997).
2
The petition for review is DENIED.
3