Siminalayi v. Ashcroft

*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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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
December 16, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-61003
Summary Calendar
BENEDICT IYERIFAMA SIMINALAYI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76-896-918
Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Benedict Iyerifama Siminalayi, a citizen of Nigeria, petitions
for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny
his applications for asylum, withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and withholding of removal
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Siminalayi argues

-- 1 of 2 --

2
that the IJ made an improper adverse credibility determination, the
IJ erroneously concluded that his abuse by the Nigerian police was
not on account of political opinion, and Siminalayi had shown that
it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned
to Nigeria.
This court gives great deference to an IJ’s decision
concerning an alien’s credibility. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d
899, 905 (5th Cir. 2002). Siminalayi fails to provide any support
for his challenge to the IJ’s credibility determination. See Chun
v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreover, the IJ’s
finding that Siminalayi was not subjected to persecution, and did
not have a well-founded fear of persecution, on account of his
political opinion (the only basis claimed by Siminalayi) is
supported by the record. The IJ’s findings that Siminalayi did not
qualify for asylum and withholding of removal under the INA are
supported by substantial evidence. See Gomez-Mejia v. INS, 56 F.3d
700, 702 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, Siminalayi’s conclusional
allegations regarding the likelihood that he would be tortured if
returned to Nigeria are insufficient to show that a “reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude” that the IJ’s denial of
his CAT application was incorrect. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see
also Efe, 293 F.3d at 907-08.
Accordingly, the petition for review is
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --