(caption unavailable)

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases
on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 94-41361
(Summary Calendar)
_________________________
CARLOS A. SOLIS-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
__________________________________________________
Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A28-660-157)
__________________________________________________
September 15, 1995
Before DUHÉ, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Carlos Alberto Solis-Rodriguez, a native citizen of
Nicaragua, entered the United States without inspection. In 1989,
Solis-Rodriguez applied for asylum in the United States, alleging
that he would be killed if he were returned to Nicaragua. The
immigration judge (IJ) found Solis-Rodriguez’s testimony regarding

-- 1 of 11 --

his reasons for fearing persecution was neither plausible nor
coherent, and denied his application for asylum and for withholding
of deportation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed
the IJ’s decision. Solis-Rodriguez challenges the action of the
BIA. We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Solis-Rodriguez, a citizen of Nicaragua, was born there in
1957 and entered the United States without inspection on or about
May 22, 1988. At Solis-Rodriguez’s August 25, 1989, deportation
hearing, he admitted that he entered the country without
inspection, conceded deportability, and requested the opportunity
to apply for asylum. The Immigration Judge continued the
deportation hearing to give Solis-Rodriguez an opportunity to file
an asylum application.
In his application, Solis-Rodriguez stated that he was a
welder, married with two children, that his brother had been
granted asylum here, and that his father had been a member of
Somoza’s Liberal Independent Party which was overthrown in 1979.
In the “annex” attached to his application, Solis-Rodriguez alleged
that he had first been arrested, interrogated and beaten in his
home town of Corinto in 1979, and was accused of being a counter-
revolutionary. The detention had lasted for 15 days, and he was
then told to report to the jail twice a month and told not to leave
town.
His second arrest, Solis-Rodriguez claimed, was in October
1984 when he was accused of being a member of the Contra “Freedom
Fighters,” and suspected of participating in attacking and

-- 2 of 11 --

3 3
destroying an oil refinery. This arrest, he claimed, lasted for
two months and fifteen days, and afterward Sandinista Defense
Committee (“C.D.S.”) members continually harassed him and his
family at his home in Corinto. In an attempt to avoid this
harassment, he moved with his family to the outskirts of town in
1985, but he was still beaten, threatened, watched, and harassed by
the C.D.S. He then moved his family to Leon. In February, 1988,
he was detained for the third time during a public demonstration
against the Sandinista government by the “January 22 Mothers’
Committee,” and held for two months. Upon his release, one of his
interrogators told him that if he were arrested again, he would
“disappear.”
At the continued hearing on January 31, 1990, Solis-Rodriguez
testified through an interpreter in support of his asylum
application. He reiterated some of the facts listed in his
application, and then stated that were he to return to Nicaragua,
he would be “disappeared” because he participated in sabotaging the
refinery. He then recanted and said that he had not participated
in the sabotage, but had only been arrested for suspicion of
sabotage. He became extremely nervous when his lawyer asked again
about the oil-refinery arrest and the move to Leon, so much so that
his attorney moved for a continuance, stating that his client was
not only nervous, but also had a high fever and the flu. The
hearing was continued until Feb. 19, 1991.
In his second hearing, Solis-Rodriguez fleshed out his family
situation: he now had three children, and several members of his

-- 3 of 11 --

4 4
family are now living in the United States. However, he was still
so nervous that he admitted he did not know what he was saying. He
stated that he had been mentally unstable since the beatings and
had been hospitalized shortly after his arrival in the U.S. He
stated that his father died six years ago in Nicaragua, but later
said that he did not remember when his father had been
“disappeared.” He was unclear about how long he had lived in the
house in Corinto with his wife before it was confiscated. He said
twice that his first arrest was in 1988, rather than 1979, and he
admitted that he helped bomb the refinery. His chronology was so
confused that the IJ herself took over the questioning in an
attempt to clear things up. Instead of 15 days, he stated that the
1979 arrest lasted a month and a half, and he now said that he had
been detained four, rather than three times. He admitted being a
Contra member -- something not stated on his application -- and
indicated that he had been very involved in anti-government
activities as a courier, photographer, and spy.
In her Oral Decision, the IJ denied Solis-Rodriguez’s
application for asylum, stating that there were many differences
between his testimony at the hearing and his application and that
the law requires the applicant prove his need for asylum with very
coherent, consistent, and plausible testimony. In its review, the
BIA reiterated the IJ’s finding that the testimony was
characterized by confusion, and that it was insufficient, for that
reason, to establish an asylum claim. Moreover, although the IJ
did not cite specific case law in her decision, the Board found

-- 4 of 11 --

1Chun v. INS., 40 F. 3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994),citing Adebisi
v. INS, 952 F. 2d 910, 912 (5th Cir. 1992).
2Adebisi v. INS, 952 F. 2d 910, 912 (5th Cir. 1992), citing
Campos-Guardado v. INS, 809 F. 2d 285, 290 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 484 U.S. 826, 108 S. Ct. 92, 98 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1987).
3Id.
5 5
that she did consider the evidence under the proper legal
standards, including those set forth in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
U.S. 421 (1987). Solis-Rodriguez timely filed a petition for
review in this court, alleging that the Board of Immigration
Appeals failed to conduct an independent review, and that there was
not sufficient evidence to support the immigration judge’s denial
of asylum and refusal to withhold deportation.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We are authorized to review an order of only the BIA, not the
IJ, and we may review actions of the IJ only when they have some
impact on the BIA’s decision.1 In this case, we review the
findings of the IJ because the BIA specifically adopted them.
The BIA’s factual conclusion that an alien is not eligible for
asylum is reviewed under the substantial evidence test.2 The
substantial evidence standard also applies to the BIA’s factual
conclusion that an alien is not eligible for withholding of
deportation.3
Under substantial evidence review, we may not reverse the
BIA’s factual determinations unless we find not just that the
evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but that the evidence

-- 5 of 11 --

4Chun v. INS, 40 F. 3d at 78, citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815 n.1, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38
(1992).
5Chun v. INS, 40 F. 3d at 78 (citations omitted).
6Id.
7Mantell v. INS, 798 F. 2d 124, 127 (5th Cir. 1986).
8Jukic v. INS, 40 F. 3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994).
9Osuchukwu, 744 F. 2d at 1142.
6 6
actually compels it.4 In other words, the alien must show that the
evidence was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could
conclude against it.5
Moreover, it is the fact finder’s duty to make determinations
based on the credibility of the witness, and we cannot substitute
our judgment for that of the BIA or IJ with respect to the
credibility of the witness.6 Thus, as we have previously made
clear, “[w]e will not review decisions turning purely on the
immigration judge’s assessment of the alien petitioner’s
credibility.”7 The petitioner must show that the BIA’s action was
arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.8
III. DISCUSSION
Solis-Rodriguez argues that the BIA’s decision was fatally
defective because it was not an independent review of his case,
citing to Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F. 2d 1136. In Osuchukwu, this
court held that it is sufficient review where the BIA meaningfully
addresses the applicant’s specific assertions.9 What is required
of the BIA is merely that it consider the issues raised, and

-- 6 of 11 --

10Id. At 1142-43.
11See id. at 1142 (the BIA “has no duty to write an exegesis
on every contention.”).
12INS v Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 449, 107 S. Ct. 1207,
94 L. Ed. 2d 434, 458 (1987).
13Guevara Flores v. INS, 786 F. 2d 1242, 1249 (5th Cir. 1986),
cert. denied 480 U.S. 930, 107 S. Ct 1565, 94 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1987).
7 7
announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing
court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely
reacted.10 The court did not mandate, as suggested by Solis-
Rodriguez, that the BIA independently review all of the applicant’s
contentions.11 In his appeal to the BIA, Solis-Rodriguez alleged
that he had been persecuted for political reasons and challenged
the IJ’s credibility finding. In response to this appeal, the BIA
found that the evidence supported the IJ’s decision and the IJ’s
credibility finding. The BIA made an independent review of the
IJ’s decision in response to Solis-Rodriguez’s appeal, and that
review was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Solis-Rodriguez next argues that the IJ’s decision was fatally
defective because it lacked sufficient reasoning and substantial
evidence. In order to qualify for asylum, an alien must prove that
he has a “well-founded fear of persecution.”12 The applicant must
show that a reasonable person in the applicant’s circumstances
would fear persecution.13 In her oral decision, the IJ stated that
Solis-Rodriguez had offered insufficient evidence to establish a
well-founded fear of persecution because his testimony had been
incoherent, inconsistent, implausible, and unbelievable, although

-- 7 of 11 --

8 8
she noted that it did not appear that he had testified with the
intent of defrauding the court. The IJ specifically noted that
Solis-Rodriguez testified that his father died approximately six
years before his 1991 hearing and later testified that his father
died some time after the Sandinistas came to power in 1979. The IJ
also noted the fact that Solis-Rodriguez had not mentioned the
facts and circumstances of his father’s death on his asylum
application. Furthermore, Solis-Rodriguez initially testified that
he was incarcerated on three occasions and then at a later point he
stated that he had been incarcerated on four occasions.
With regard to his detentions, the IJ noted that although
Solis Rodriguez had testified that his 1979 detention at the Port
of Corinto was a result of his distribution of anti-Sandinista
literature and for having organized anti-Sandinista meetings, these
activities were not mentioned in his asylum application. In this
regard, the IJ also noted that although Solis-Rodriguez’s asylum
application did not indicate that he was a member of any
organization affiliated with the Contras, Solis testified that he
had been a member of the Contra group known as the “Freedom
Fighters” and that he worked steadily for the organization as a
courier and spy from 1979 to 1988.
Additionally, the IJ noted that, although Solis-Rodriguez
testified that he had no employment from 1979 until 1988 other than
his job as a courier and spy, he later testified on cross-
examination that he had a job as a mechanic. The IJ also pointed
out that although Solis-Rodriguez had stated that he had been

-- 8 of 11 --

14See Rivera-Cruz v. INS, 948 F. 2d 962, 966 (5th Cir.
1991)(recognizing the governmental change in Nicaragua).
15Jukic, 40 F. 3d at 749 (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at
484).
16Rivera-Cruz, 948 F. 2d at 965-66.
9 9
living in his house with his wife for 13 years before it was
confiscated by the Sandinistas, he testified previously that she
moved in with him when they were married in 1981, only seven years
before he left the country in 1988. The IJ concluded these
observations by noting that “[t]hroughout his testimony, [Solis-
Rodriguez] exhibited similar confusion about dates and sequences of
events.”
Furthermore, the IJ also took administrative notice of the
fact that there was a new government in Nicaragua and that “former
members of Contra organizations have reportedly been given zones in
which they can live in Nicaragua with safety.”14 The IJ concluded
that Solis-Rodriguez had failed to show that the incidents which
allegedly happened to him are likely to reoccur. Solis-Rodriguez
has thus failed to show that his evidence was so compelling that
“‘no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear
of persecution.”15
Solis-Rodriguez also argues that deporting him would be
inhumane. Although some evidence of past persecution was
presented, past persecution alone can warrant asylum even without
the likelihood of future persecution if past persecution was so
severe that return to the country of persecution would be
inhumane.16 The equivocal nature of Solis-Rodriguez’s evidence

-- 9 of 11 --

17Jukic, 40 F. 3d at 749.
18Id. At 750.
10 10
supports the BIA’s finding that there was insufficient evidence of
past persecution and that evidence of future persecution was
dubious. The BIA found no compelling humanitarian reason for
granting asylum. Because the reasons discussed by the BIA in its
written decision are grounded in the evidence of record, and
because Solis-Rodriguez’s testimony regarding his persecution fears
was equivocal and uncertain, the BIA’s decision is sufficiently
supported by the evidence.
Solis-Rodriguez further argues that the Board erred in denying
him a withholding of deportation. Congress has proscribed the
deportation of an alien whose life or freedom would be threatened
on account of race, religion, nationality, or membership in a
social group. 8 U.S.C. §1253 (h)(1). A petitioner “must
demonstrate a clear probability of persecution on one of the
enumerated grounds.”17 The showing that is required to prove such
a probability is greater than that required to prove a well-founded
fear of persecution under the asylum remedy.18 Because Solis-
Rodriguez failed to prove that he was entitled to asylum, a
fortiori, he is held ineligible for withholding of deportation.
We conclude that the IJ’s finding that Solis-Rodriguez was not
credible is a reasonable interpretation of the record and supported
by substantial evidence. Certainly, the opposite conclusion, that

-- 10 of 11 --

19Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at n. 1, 112 S. Ct. At 812 n. 1,
817.
11 11
Solis-Rodriguez was credible, is not compelled by the evidence.
Therefore, we may not reverse this finding.19
Without credible evidence, the BIA had no basis upon which to
grant asylum or withhold deportation. For the foregoing reasons,
we AFFIRM the decision of the BIA.

-- 11 of 11 --