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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60541

Summary Calendar

JIANG HUI-QING

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. A94 787 616

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jiang Hui-Qing, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,

petitions for review of a May 2008 Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order.

That order affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) February 2007 denial of

Petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60541

2

Having conceded removability as an “alien present in the United States

without being admitted or paroled”, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), Petitioner sought

immigration relief based on his claimed persecution, by Chinese officials, for

violating and resisting China’s family-planning policy. The IJ denied relief,

finding: Petitioner was not a credible witness; and, in the alternative, he could

not establish eligibility for relief based on his girlfriend’s forced abortion because

such relief is limited to spouses.

The BIA agreed that Petitioner was not entitled to relief based on his

girlfriend’s abortion. It also noted that Petitioner may have been eligible for

relief based on his own resistance to China’s family-planning policies, but found

that he had not met his burden of proving eligibility for such relief because he

failed to provide credible evidence.

Petitioner challenges the credibility determinations made by the IJ and

the BIA, and contends he demonstrated eligibility for relief. Our court reviews

the BIA’s order and, additionally, the underlying IJ decision where, as in this

instance, it had “some impact on the BIA’s decision”. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d

299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). “We review factual findings of the BIA and IJ for

substantial evidence, and questions of law de novo”. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d

588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007). For substantial-evidence review, “we may reverse a

decision on a factual finding only when the evidence compels us to do so”. Id.

(emphasis added); see also Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005)

(“[R]eversal is improper unless we decide not only that the evidence supports a

contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it”. (internal quotation

marks and brackets omitted) (emphasis in original)).

Petitioner was not entitled to relief based on his girlfriend’s abortion

because such relief is limited to spouses. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 531,

532 (5th Cir. 2004). Additionally, concerning his possibly being otherwise

eligible for relief, the underlying credibility determinations are supported by

substantial evidence. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d at 343-44.
No. 08-60541

3

Petitioner’s testimony, regarding the age his girlfriend became pregnant,

details concerning her abortion, and how and when he obtained documents filed

in support of his application, was either: internally inconsistent; inconsistent

with his written application; or inconsistent with other evidence. In sum, the

evidence does not compel a conclusion that Petitioner’s testimony was credible.

See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir. 2006). Along that line, the

BIA’s holding Petitioner failed to carry his burden of establishing eligibility for

asylum, withholding of deportation, or relief under the CAT, is also supported

by substantial evidence. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).

DENIED.