Case ID: f-appx_293/html/0296-01.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

Michael Ongubo NYAIGOTI, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-60789
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 18, 2008.
    Muakum J. Sherman, Muakum, Sherman & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Michael Ongubo Nyaigoti, a citizen and native of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) dismissal of his appeal of the order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for withholding of removal. To obtain withholding of removal, an applicant must show a clear probability of persecution if removed. Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir.2004).

Nyaigoti challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and the IJ’s determination that Nyaigoti failed to show a clear probability of persecution, if he were to return to Kenya, on account of his alleged membership in a political party. Nyaigoti asserts that the inconsistencies in his live testimony and the evidence are not material to his claims. Although Nyaigoti seeks to minimize the importance of the inconsistencies, our review of the record does not compel a determination contrary to that of the IJ. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994); see also Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir.2002). Similarly, Nyaigoti has failed to show that the evidence of past persecution or the probability of future persecution is so compelling as to require a conclusion contrary to that of the IJ. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.2006); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d at 138.

The 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.