Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60712 Su m m ar y Cal endar

HEL ENE KE NGNE KUE M O P et i t i on er

v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, US ATTORN EY GE N ERA L Res po nde nt

Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B I AN o. A 98 873 477

B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , a n dE L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * H e l e ne K e ngn e K ue m o , a nat ive and c i t i z e n o f Cam e r o o n, c hal l e nge s t he B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s’ ( B IA) di sm i ssi n g h er ap pea l of t h e i m m i grati on j u d ge’ s (IJ) den i alof her asyl u m an d w i t h h ol di n g- of

- rem oval ap pl i cat i on s. K u em o con t est s the IJ’ s ad verse credibi l i t y f i n di n g an d cl ai m s s h e est abli shed pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on ac c o unto f he rm e m be r s hi p i n a pa r t i c ul ars o c i alg r o up. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 7, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60712

2 A c c or di ngl y, K uem o c ont ends the B I A ’ s dec i si on i s nots upport ed bys ubst ant i al
e v id e n c e . F a c tu a l fin d in g s t h a t a n a lie n is in e lig ib le fo ra s y lu m a r e re v ie w e do n ly to d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e ya r e s u p p o r te db ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . G o m ez -Mejia
v . I NS , 5 6 F. 3d700 , 7 02 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 5)

. Al o ng t hi s l i ne , “ w e m us tde fe rt o t he B IA ’ s fa c tu a l fin d in g s u n l e s s th e e v id e n c e is s o co m p e llin gth a t n o re a s o n a b le fa c t fin d e rco u ldfa il to fin do th e r w is e ”. Mi k h a e lv . I NS , 11 5 F

. 3 d29 9 , 30 4 ( 5 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). Th e IJ ’ s f

i ndi ng K uem o’ s t es t i m ony notc r edibl e i s suppor t ed by
s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . S ee V i d al v. G on zal es , 4 9 1 F .3d 2 5 0 , 2 5 4 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). A ccord i n gly, K u em o’ s con ten tio n s do n ot com p el t h i s cou rt t o su b sti tu te i ts ju d g m e n t fo rth a t o f th e IJ

. S ee Ch u n v . I NS , 4 0 F

. 3 d76 , 78 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 4 ) (“W e c a n n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r j u d g m e n t f o r t h a t o f t h e BI A o r I J wi t h r e s p e c tt o t he cred ib i l i ty of t h e w i tn ess es o r u l ti m a te fa ctu a lf i n d i n gs ba sed on cred ib i l i ty d e te rm in a tion s.”); se e also 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 )(B )(ii) (s p e c ify in gcr ite r ia al l o w i ng pe t i t i o ne r ’ s c r e dibl e t e s t i m o ny t o c o ns t i t ut e s o l e s upp o r tf o ra s yl um el i gibi l i t y)

. B ecau se t h e I J’ s f i n di n g K u em o’ s testi m on y n otcr edibl e i s a s uf f i ci en t g r o und f

o ra f f i r m i ng t he BI A’ s de c i s i o n, w e ne e d no tr e ac h t he
a lte r n a tiv e ru li n g th a t K u e m o fa ile dto m e e t h e rb u r d e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin ga w e llfo u n d e dfe a ro f p e r s e c u tio n . S ee Chun , 4 0 F .3 da t 7 9
. K ue m o di d no t e xha us t he r Conv e nt i o n Agai ns t Tor t ur e c l ai m be f o r e t he B IA ; th e r e fo r e , th a t cla im c a n n o t b e co n s id e r e dh e r e . S ee W a ngv. A sh cr oft , 260 F .3d 4 4 8 , 4 5 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). DE NI ED

.