Case ID: f-appx_88/html/0708-01.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

Sabu HOSSAIN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60431.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 13, 2004.
    Imran B. Mirza, Quan, Burdette & Perez, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Elisabeth Layton, John Ashcroft, pro se, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, Houston, TX, and Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Sabu Hossain petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Hossain challenges the IJ’s determination that his testimony was not credible, and he also takes issue with the IJ’s alternative determination Hossain is not entitled to asylum even if his testimony is assumed to be truthful.

On a petition for review of a BIA decision, this court reviews factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. See Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir.2001). “The substantial evidence standard requires only that the BIA’s decision be supported by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir.2002).

This court gives great deference to an IJ’s decision concerning an alien’s credibility. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir.2002). The IJ’s determination that Hossain was not credible is a reasonable interpretation of the administrative record and is therefore supported by substantial evidence. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.1994). Absent credible evidence, the BIA has no basis upon which to grant asylum. See id. Because Hossain’s lack of credibility is an adequate ground for affirming the BIA’s denial of Hossain’s asylum application, there is no need to address the alternative holding that even if Hossain were credible he would not be eligible for relief. See id.

Hossain has waived any issues relating to the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal and its denial of relief under the CAT by failing to address them in his brief. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986).

Hossain’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.