Case Name: Elisa Sara MENDES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-20
Citations: 131 F. App'x 968
Docket Number: No. 04-60568
Parties: Elisa Sara MENDES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 968–968

Head Matter:
Elisa Sara MENDES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-60568.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided May 20, 2005.
Elisa Sara Mendes, Galveston, TX, pro se.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Anthony P. Nicastro, John Ashcroft, Caryl G Thompson, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lisa Sara Mendes, a native and citizen of Angola, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming without opinion the immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In rejecting Mendes' applications, the IJ found that Mendes lacked credibility.
Generally, we review the decision of the BIA and will consider the underlying decision of the IJ only if it influenced the BIA's determination. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997). When, as in this case, the BIA adopts the IJ's decision without a written opinion, we review the IJ's decision. Id.
The IJ articulated cogent reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for rejecting Mendes' testimony as incredible. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.1994). Absent credible testimony by Mendes, substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Mendes failed to establish that she was eligible for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. Because Mendes makes only a conclusory statement that she is entitled to relief under the CAT, she has shown no error in the IJ's denial of relief under the CAT. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir.2002).
Accordingly, her 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.