Mendes 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 20, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60568
Summary Calendar
ELISA SARA MENDES,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 478 339
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lisa Sara Mendes, a native and citizen of Angola, has
petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum and
withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). In rejecting Mendes’ applications, the IJ
found that Mendes lacked credibility.
Generally, we review the decision of the BIA and will
consider the underlying decision of the IJ only if it influenced

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-60568
-2-
the BIA’s determination. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th
Cir. 1997). When, as in this case, the BIA adopts the IJ’s
decision without a written opinion, we review the IJ’s decision.
Id.
The IJ articulated cogent reasons, supported by substantial
evidence in the record, for rejecting Mendes’ testimony as
incredible. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).
Absent credible testimony by Mendes, substantial evidence
supports the IJ’s determination that Mendes failed to establish
that she was eligible for asylum and withholding of removal. See
id. Because Mendes makes only a conclusory statement that she is
entitled to relief under the CAT, she has shown no error in the
IJ’s denial of relief under the CAT. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293
F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, her petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --