UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 94-40315

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

SEYHHAMAT OZDEMIR,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

______________________________________________________

(November 1, 1994)

Before DUHÉ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Seyhhamat Ozdemir's applications for asylum and

withholding of deportation were denied by the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA). Ozdemir petitions us to review the BIA's decision.

We dismiss his petition.

FACTS

Ozdemir, a twenty-six year old ethnic Kurd, is a citizen of

Turkey. Turkish police arrested him on March 16, 1992, after he

participated in a Kurdish anti-government demonstration. The

police detained him for three days, during which time they beat him

on the sole s of his feet. The police interrogated him about his

participation in terrorist organizations. Ozdemir testified that

he is a member of the TKP, an organization that uses peaceful means2

to combat discrimination against Kurds, and not a member of the

PKK, a terrorist organization. The police released Ozdemir, and he

participated in no further demonstration s

. Nevertheless, the

police twice questioned him after terrorist incidents occurred in

Istanbul. Ozdemir left Turkey on February 17, 1993, and entered

the United States illegally.

DISCUSSION

We review factual conclusions of the BIA for substantial

evidence. S ilwany-Rodriguez v. INS

, 975 F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir.

1992). We will affirm the BIA's decision unless the evidence

compels a contrary conclusion. Id.

The BIA concluded that Ozdemir had not suffered past

persecution on account of political opinion. The BIA based its

conclusion on two grounds: (1) it found that Ozdemir's testimony

was not credible; and (2) even if he was credible, Ozdemir had not

suffered past persecution on account of political opinion.

The BIA reviews the record de nov o and may make its own

cr edibility determinations. D amaize-Job v. INS

, 787 F.2d 1332,

1 338 (9th Cir. 1986). Generally, we review only the decision of

the BIA. C astillo-Rodriguez v. INS

, 929 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir.

1991). I n this case, however, the immigration judge (IJ) found

Ozdemir to be a credible witness. If the credibility

determinations of the IJ and the BIA conflict, we may consider

both. McMullen v. INS , 658 F.2d 1312, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981).

We need not decide the credibility issue because, even given

Ozdemir's tes timony, we conclude that he did not suffer past3

persecution on account of political opinion. The BIA found that

the police interrogated Ozdemir because they were seeking

information on terrorist organizations such the PKK. The Supreme

Court requires a petitioner for asylum to prove that a group in his

country will persecute him because of his political opinion. INS

v. Elias-Zacarias

, 112 S. Ct. 812, 816 (1992) . The record shows

that numerous terrorists incidents occurred in Istanbul. The

police were searching for information relating to these incidents.

They did not interrogate Ozdemir because he was Kurdish or because

he wanted discrimination against Kurds to end. They were searching

for information on terrorist organizations. We conclude that

substantial evidence exists to support the BIA's conclusion of no

past persecution on account of political opinion.

Ozdemir also applied for withholding of deportation. The

burden of proof for withholding of deportation, however, is higher

than that for asylum. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421,

449 (1987). Thus, Ozdemir cannot succeed on his application for

withholding of deportation if he fails on his application for

asylum.

Lastly, Ozdemir would have us apply the Convention Against

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment. We have no jurisdiction to decide this issue because

it was not raised to the BIA. Townsend v. INS , 799 F.2d 179, 182

(5th Cir. 1986).

For the foregoing reasons, Ozdemir's petition is DISMISSED.