Tuqan 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
June 15, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60517
Summary Calendar
ABDAL WAHAB RAJEB TUQAN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 537 536
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Abdal Wahab Rajeb Tuqan (Tuqan), a native and citizen of
Jordan, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum
and withholding of removal. The BIA accepted the IJ’s
determination, in light of the discrepancies between Tuqan’s
first and second applications, as well as his testimony at the
immigration hearing, that Tuqan’s testimony was not credible.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-60517
-2-
The BIA also found that Tuqan had failed to meet his burden of
proof to present a believable and sufficiently supported claim.
Tuqan argues that the BIA and the IJ erred in determining
that certain statements were inconsistent, and he blames any
inconsistencies on translation errors or bad advice that he was
given by a translator who allegedly assisted him in preparing his
first application for asylum and withholding of removal. He also
asserts that his supporting documentation did not undermine his
testimony.
We review the BIA’s determination that an alien is not
entitled to asylum or withholding of removal for substantial
evidence and will not reverse the BIA’s determination unless the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293
F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir. 2002). Additionally, we will not
substitute our “judgment for that of the BIA or IJ with respect
to the credibility of the witnesses or ultimate factual findings
based on credibility determinations.” Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76,
78 (5th Cir. 1994). There is substantial evidence in the record
to support the determination that Tuqan did not credibly or
sufficiently support his applications for asylum and withholding
of removal. Id. at 79; see also In re Y-B, 21 I & N Dec. 1136,
1139 (BIA 1998). The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --