Summary Calendar JINGHUA DI v. John Ashcroft, Us Attorney General

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 9, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-61008
Summary Calendar
JINGHUA DI
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
* * * * * *
Consolidated with
* * * * * *
No. 02-61014
XING GANG LIU
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - -
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76-898-950
- - - - - - - - - -
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-61008
c/w/ No. 02 61014
-2-
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
The petitioners, Jinghua Di (Di) and her husband Xing Gang
Liu (Liu) whose claims are dependent upon Di’s, are natives and
citizens of the Peoples’ Republic of China. They request review
of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which
affirmed the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) to deny their
application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the BIA
employed the streamlined review process of 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(a)(7), we review the IJ’s decision. See Soadjede v.
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 2003).
The IJ based his decision to deny relief on his explicit
findings that Di was not credible. We do not “review decisions
turning purely on the immigration judge’s assessment of the alien
petitioner’s credibility.” Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.
1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In light
of the IJ’s explanation of the credibility determination, that
determination was “a reasonable interpretation of the record,”
and the evidence does not compel the conclusion urged by Di and
Liu. See id. at 78-79.
The petition for review is DENIED.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --