Case Name: Mary W. BENSON, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-21
Citations: 278 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 07-60486
Parties: Mary W. BENSON, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 278
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
Mary W. BENSON, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-60486
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 21, 2008.
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mary W. Benson, a native and citizen of Kenya, has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In rejecting Benson's application, the BIA found that Benson lacked credibility.
On a petition for review of a BIA decision, this court reviews the factual findings for substantial evidence. Ozdemir v. INS, 46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir.1994). Under the substantial evidence standard, this court will affirm the BIA's decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. at 8. "The applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion." Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.2006).
The decision of the BIA to reject Benson's testimony as incredible is based on a reasonable interpretation of the record and therefore is supported by substantial evidence. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.1994). Moreover, even if Benson's testimony was deemed credible, the record does not compel a finding that she is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. Accordingly, Benson's petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.