Maung Naing v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 511140727

Case: 09-60535

Document: 00511140727

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/14/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60535 S u m m a r y Calendar June 14, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

M A U N G THANT NAING, also known as Thant Naing, P e titio n e r v. E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R espon dent

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A089 092 492

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* M a u n g Thant Naing petitions for review of the determination of the Board o f Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the I m m ig r a t io n Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of r e m o v a l, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Naing's

a p p lic a t io n was denied, and his appeal was dismissed, because his testimony w a s determined to be not credible.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Case: 09-60535

Document: 00511140727 Page: 2 No. 09-60535

Date Filed: 06/14/2010

N a in g contends that he established a reasonable fear of future persecution b a s e d on his past persecution because of his political beliefs. He argues that the I J and BIA made erroneous credibility determinations, seizing on immaterial a n d minor discrepancies, engaging in speculation, and relying too heavily on the la c k of detail provided during his credible fear interview. He asserts that the d o c u m e n t a r y evidence in the record about conditions in Burma corroborates his t e s t im o n y . W e generally have authority to review only the decision of the BIA. Zhu v . Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). However, when the BIA's

d e c is io n is affected by the IJ's ruling, as it was in this case, we also review the I J 's decision. Id. This court reviews the BIA's rulings of law de novo and its fin d in g s of fact for substantial evidence. See id. at 594. Under the substantial e v id e n c e standard, reversal is improper unless this court decides "`not only that t h e evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it .'" Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). "The applicant has the burden of showing that the e v id e n c e is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary c o n c lu s io n ." Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. This standard is applied in reviewing d e t e r m in a t io n s regarding asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the C A T . See id. T h e adverse credibility findings in Naing's case are supported by specific a n d cogent reasons derived from the record. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 3 3 9 , 344 (5th Cir. 2005). It is irrelevant that some of the inconsistencies or in n a c u r a c ie s go to facts not directly at the heart of Naing's claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). P E T I T I O N DENIED.

2