IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-60838

Summary Calendar

ZHOUFENG NING,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A096 137 088

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Zhoufeng Ning, a native and citizen of China, applied for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT),

based on his alleged persecution for his participation in a Christian house

church in China. The Immigration Judge (IJ) made an adverse credibility

finding, which was upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) when it

dismissed Ning’s administrative appeal.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 24, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-60838 Document: 00511581228 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2011
No. 10-60838

Ning argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not supported by

substantial evidence in the record because the alleged inconsistencies between

his statements in support of his asylum applications and his hearing testimony

were actually additional details or minor inconsistencies that did not go to the

heart of his claim. He contends that in the absence of the adverse credibility

finding, he showed his eligibility for relief for asylum, for withholding of

removal, and under CAT.

This court may review the IJ’s findings and conclusions if the BIA adopts

them. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.2002). This court reviews an

immigration court’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Wang v. Holder,

569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Among the findings of fact that this court

reviews for substantial evidence is the conclusion that an alien is not eligible for

asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT. Zhang v. Gonzales,

432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Because Ning’s application was filed prior to the May 11, 2005 effective

date of the REAL ID Act, its amended standards for assessing credibility did not

apply to his application. Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. Under the pre-REAL ID Act

standards, if the IJ’s credibility determination is supported by the record and the

IJ’s reasons are supported by “specific cogent reasons,” this court will affirm the

decision, even if this court may have reached a different result. Mwembie v.

Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir. 2006).

Some of the inconsistencies between the testimony and the applications

cited by the IJ were not relevant or could have been the result of a translation

problem or Ning’s providing more detailed information at the hearing. However,

the record supports the IJ’s findings that there were other major inconsistencies

that rendered questionable the validity and credibility of Ning’s claims of

persecution following his arrest in China. Ning has failed to provide a

convincing explanation for these inconsistencies. Ning’s claims were also

undermined by his father’s lack of knowledge of his practice of Christianity in

2

Case: 10-60838 Document: 00511581228 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2011
No. 10-60838

China and his failure to obtain a statement of his wife or anyone else confirming

his practice of his faith in that country. 

Ning’s asylum, withholding, and CAT claims were all based on alleged

persecution for his practice of Christianity in a house church in China. Because

the credibility determination of the IJ and the BIA is based on a “reasonable

interpretation of the record and therefore supported by substantial evidence,”

the determination must be upheld by the court. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th

Cir. 1994). In light of the BIA’s denial of the petition based on the adverse

credibility finding, the court will not consider the IJ’s denial of relief based on

the merits or as a matter of discretion. See Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183,

186-87 (2006) Accordingly, Ning’s petition for review is DENIED. 

3

Case: 10-60838 Document: 00511581228 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2011