Appleton, et al v. Gonzales

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 17, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60401
Summary Calendar
DUKE APPLETON, also known as Duke Klabo Richard Appleton;
ALICE APPLETON; DUKE KLABO WEBSTER WADE APPLETON; KOLLICE
APPLETON; DUKE EDWARD WADE KLABO APPLETON,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A96 029 280
A92 029 281
A96 029 282
A96 029 283
A96 029 284
-------------------------------------------------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
The Appletons petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) decision
denying their request for asylum and withholding of removal. They have also moved this court to
expedite its review of their petition.
We reject the Appletons’ argument that the BIA impermissibly reviewed the immigration
judge’s factual findings de novo; the BIA did not substitute its own factual findings for those of the
immigration judge but instead held that the evidence was insufficient to support the immigration
judge’s findings, which it was legally entitled to do. See Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 667-68 (5th
Cir. 2002). We further hold that the BIA’s asylum determination was supported by substantial
evidence. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). The BIA was not required to
accept, without corroboration, Duke Appleton’s oral testimony as sufficient evidence to establish
eligibility for asylum given that the immigration judge had impugned his credibility, finding that
Appleton was trustworthy only with verification. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (2004); Abdel-Masieh
v. Ashcroft, 73 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1996).
We are without jurisdiction to address the Appletons’ argument that they are entitled to
asylum under the mixed-motives doctrine given that this argument was not presented to the BIA. See
Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). Finally, when read in its entirety, the BIA’s
decision does not support a determination that it misapplied the law on imputed political opinion. Cf.
Campos-Guardado v. INS, 809 F.2d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1987).
PETITION DENIED; MOTION TO EXPEDITE REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --