### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-60937 Summary Calendar

DRITON SHALA,
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. A075 897 453

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Driton S hala, a native and citizen of the former Yugoslavia (now Kosovo), applied for asylum under the I m m i g r a tion a nd Nationality Act (INA), withholding of removal under the INA, and withholding of removal u nde r t h e Convention Against Torture (CAT), based on his religion, his political opinion, and his membership i n a particular social group (homosexual males). The Immigration Judge (IJ) made an adverse credibility findin g a n d d etermined that Shala failed to satisfy his burden of p r oof for asylum or withholding of r emoval. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 14, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60937 Document: 00512405740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2013No. 12-60937

The IJ further determined that even if S hala was credible, Shala nevertheless failed to satisfy his burden of proof for asylum or withholding of r emoval. The IJ’s decision was upheld b y the Board of Immigra t i o n s Appeals (BIA) when it dismissed Shala’s administrative appeal. Shala argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was based on trivial inconsistencies. Because Shala’s applic a t i o n was filed prior to the May 11, 2005, effective date of the REAL ID Act, the Act’s amended standards for assessing credibility did not apply to his application. Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2 009). Under pre-REAL ID Ac t standards, when an IJ’s credibility d etermination f inds support in the record, t h a t finding will be affirmed unless th e r e c ord compels a contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). The inconsistencies b etween Shala’s applications and his testimony show that the adverse c redibility determination w as supported by the record. See id. The o pposite c onclusion, that Shala w as c redible, is not compelled by the evidence. See id. Thus, we may not reverse this finding. See id. In support o f h is appellate argument, including his argument for remand, Shala relies on various handbooks, memoranda, a nd country reports a s well as his recent marriage. However, we are not b ound by such materials. See Kane

v. H older , 5 8 1 F

. 3 d 2 3 1 , 242 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, S hala did not rely on these materials b efore the IJ or the BIA. I n reviewing a petition for review, this

c ourt’s r eview is limited t o “the a dministrative record on w h i ch the order o f removal is based.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); s e e Kane , 5 81 F.3d at 242. Finally, § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1) expressly strips this court of authority t o order a remand f o r consideration of additional evidence. See § 1252(a)(1) (“the court may not order the taking of additional evidence under section 2347(c) of [Title 28]”). Shala also asserts that the IJ and the BIA violated his due process rights. Although he complains that the IJ’s d e nials of his motions t o change venue from Dallas, Texas, to New York City, New York, c aused him extreme financial and
2 Case: 12-60937 Document: 00512405740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2013No. 12-60937

emotional hardship, he fails t o show that the result in h is case w ould h ave been different had the proce e d i ngs been conducted in New York City. See OjedaTerrazas v. Ashcroft , 290 F.3d 292, 302 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 2 )

. M oreover, Shala's complaint about the translat or fails to show that a different translator would change the result in his case. See id. Finally, Shala has abandoned his claim for withholding of removal under the CAT by failing to brief it. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

3 Case: 12-60937 Document: 00512405740 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/14/2013