Case ID: f-appx_85/html/0389-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Meiqi WU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60505.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 14, 2004.
    
      Alan Chung Chen, Richardson, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, US Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Anne M Estrada, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Kurt Barrett Larson, US Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, M Jocelyn Lopez Wright, US Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Meiqi Wu petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Wu argues that the immigration judge erred in finding that he was not credible. He contends that the Board of Immigration Appeals should not have deferred to the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding. Wu argues that this court should reverse the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order because he suffered past persecution on account of his imputed political opinion. Furthermore, Wu argues that the immigration judge erred in denying him relief pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. Wu declares that it is more likely than not that he will suffer torture at the hands of government authorities upon his removal to China.

The immigration judge’s determination that Wu was not credible is “a reasonable interpretation of the record and therefore supported by substantial evidence.” See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.1994). “Without credible evidence, the BIA had no basis upon which to grant asylum.” Id. Wu has not made the necessary showing to obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir.2002). Wu’s petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       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.