IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 16, 2009
No. 08-60677
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
JONAL JOSEPH,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A94 798 833
Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jonal Joseph, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of a
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration
judge’s (IJ) decision to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
or relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Joseph sought
immigration relief based on his alleged persecution by supporters of Jean
Bertrand Aristide, the former president of Haiti. The IJ denied relief after
*
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 08-60677
finding that Joseph was not a credible witness and had failed to provide
corroborating evidence. The BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination and held that Joseph had failed to meet his burden of proving
eligibility for immigration relief. Joseph challenges those negative credibility
determinations. He contends that he demonstrated his eligibility for relief.
The BIA’s finding that Joseph failed to provide the court with credible
evidence in support of his claim for immigration relief is supported by
substantial evidence. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2009).
The inconsistencies listed by the BIA and IJ regarding Joseph’s accounts of his
persecution are supported by the record. Certainly, the evidence does not compel
a conclusion that Joseph’s testimony was credible. See id. at 538-39. Absent
credible evidence to the contrary, the BIA’s finding that Joseph failed to carry
his burden of establishing his eligibility for asylum, withholding of deportation,
or relief under the CAT, is supported by substantial evidence. See Chun v. INS,
40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 186
n.2 (5th Cir. 2004); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002).
Joseph’s petition for review is DENIED.
2