Case Name: Munundiri Ritha MUKWANGA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-14
Citations: 115 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 04-60098
Parties: Munundiri Ritha MUKWANGA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 203–204

Head Matter:
Munundiri Ritha MUKWANGA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-60098.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 14, 2004.
Munundiri Ritha Mukwanga, Euless, TX, pro se.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, Dallas, TX, Linda S. Wernery, U.S. Department of Justice, William Clark Minick, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Munundiri Ritha Mukwanga, a .native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming without opinion the immigration judge's ("U") decision denying Mukwanga's application for asylum, for withholding of deportation, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Mukwanga has failed to show that the record compels reversal of the finding of the immigration judge that Mukwanga failed to give credible testimony that she is entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 306 (5th Cir.1997). Because Mukwanga makes only conclusional statements that she is entitled to relief under the CAT, she has shown no error. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir.2002). Accordingly, her petition for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of her application for asylum, -withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.