Case ID: f-appx_111/html/0759-01.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

Antoine Ngendahayo AHORUKOMEYE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60794.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Nov. 3, 2004.
    Joshua Turin, Sondra Mae Turin, Turin, Turin & Olinger, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
    
      Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Ronald N. Ohata, Christopher Cyrus Fuller, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Caryl G. Thompson, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Antoine Ngendahayo Ahorukomeye petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision to deny his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as well as the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Ahorukomeye argues that the BIA erred in determining that he had not established entitlement to asylum and withholding of removal under both the INA and the CAT based on both his own testimony and documentary evidence submitted to the IJ.

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 Ahorukomeye’s INA claims or his CAT claim. See id. Accordingly, Ahorukomeye’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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.