Case ID: f-appx_608/html/0282-01.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

YING PAN QHAO, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-60275
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 29, 2015.
    Stuart Mitchell Lewis Altman, esq., Law Office of Stuart Altman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    
      Remi Da Rocha-Afodu, esq., Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Gox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, Dc, for Respondent.
    Before KING, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ying Pan Qhao, a citizen of China, petitions this court for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture' (CAT) relief. Because the BIA relied upon the IJ’s decision, this court reviews both the IJ’s decision and the order of the BIA. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir.2009).

Qhao does not meaningfully challenge the denial of withholding of removal or of her claim that her due process rights were violated; she therefore has abandoned these claims. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003). Qhao’s attempts to explain away the evidentiary inconsistencies, implausibilities, and lack of detail identified by the IJ do not constitute substantial evidence compelling the conclusion that she is credible. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538. Likewise, she fails to show that substantial evidence compels her entitlement to either asylum or CAT relief. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Qhao’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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.