IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60248

Summary Calendar

TANG CHEN,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A209 436 390

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the 

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the 

order of the immigration judge denying her application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The 

Board determined that the immigration judge’s adverse credibility ruling was 

not clearly erroneous given the inconsistencies in the record concerning the 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-60248 Document: 00515517880 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2020
No. 19-60248

2

following: whether Chen knew the name of the person who owned the home 

where Chen attended two Christian gatherings; whether a detention warrant 

in the record confirmed that Chen resisted arrest, was detained, and was fined;

whether Chen was living with her husband or father at the time of her 

detention by the police; the date that Chen had identified as the day she was 

married; and the number of times that the police required Chen to report 

following her release from detention. Chen timely petitioned this court for 

review after the Board reissued its opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

We review for substantial evidence the findings that Chen is not credible, 

see Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536–40 (5th Cir. 2009), and that she is not 

eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention 

Against Torture, see Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Under this standard, we may not reverse a factual finding unless the evidence 

compels it. Wang, 569 F.3d at 536–37; § 1252(b)(4)(B).

Chen must demonstrate that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion, 

but she has not done so. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 537. The adverse credibility 

ruling was not based on pure speculation or conjecture. See id. Instead, it was 

based on specific inconsistencies in statements made by Chen during her 

credible fear interview, in her asylum application, and at an immigration 

hearing. See id. Chen’s explanations for the inconsistencies fail to show that, 

under the totality of the circumstances, any reasonable factfinder would have

found her credible. See id. at 537–38. Given the adverse credibility ruling and 

Chen’s failure to point to corroborative evidence in the record supporting her 

claims, other than to general statements in documents on religious persecution 

in China, we conclude substantial evidence supported denying Chen relief. See 

Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 657–59 (5th Cir. 2012).

The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 19-60248 Document: 00515517880 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2020