Case Name: Gustavo Segundo QUINTERO-RESTREPO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-07
Citations: 102 F. App'x 416
Docket Number: No. 03-60865
Parties: Gustavo Segundo QUINTERO-RESTREPO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SMITH, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 416–416

Head Matter:
Gustavo Segundo QUINTERO-RESTREPO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-60865.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided July 7, 2004.
Paul S Zoltán, Law Office of Paul S Zoltán, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Jullia F Callahan, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Anne M Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Before SMITH, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gustavo Segundo Quintero-Estrepa ("Quintero") has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) affirmance of the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of removal. He argues that substantial evidence does not support the IJ's determination that Quintero was not credible and that he was not eligible for withholding of removal.
We may review the IJ's decision, given that the BIA adopted the IJ's findings. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 77 (5th Cir.1994). Both the IJ's credibility finding and the determination that Quintero was not eligible for withholding of removal are supported by substantial evidence; certainly the evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997); see also Lopez De Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir.2002); Chun, 40 F.3d at 78.
PETITION FOR REVIEW 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.