Case ID: f-appx_85/html/0982-01.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

Haregewoin Mamo DESTA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60268
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 19, 2004.
    Catherine Lampard-Naccari, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner. •
    •Richard M Evans, Assistant Director, David E. Dauenheimer, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Haregewoin Mamo Desta petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision to deny her application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as well as the BIA’s rejection' of her claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Desta argues that the BIA erred in determining that she had not established a well-founded fear of future persecution or that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if she were returned to Ethiopia.

This court will-uphold the factual findings that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). The substantial evidence standard requires that the decision be based on the evidence presented and that the decision be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996). The BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion as to either Desta’s INA claims or her CAT claim. See id. Accordingly, Desta’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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.