Case ID: f-appx_278/html/0419-01.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

JIN ZAI CHEN, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-60532
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 16, 2008.
    Liu Yu, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, John Clifford Cunningham, Edward C. Durant, Remi Adalemo, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., E.M. Trominski, District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, Harlingen, TX, for Respondent.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jin Zai Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. When, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997).

Chen argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is not supported by the record. Chen further argues that he was not provided with a meaningful opportunity to rebut or address the IJ’s credibility concerns.

Contrary to Chen’s assertions, our review of the record establishes that the IJ’s findings that Chen’s testimony is incredible is substantially supported by the record. None of Chen’s arguments compel this court to substitute its judgment for that of the IJ. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994). Without credible evidence, the IJ had no grounds to grant Chen asylum or withholding of removal. Id. at 79. 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.