Summary Calendar KUMAR LAKHWINDER v. Alberto R. Gonzales, U.s. Attorney General

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
F I L E D
November 15, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60960
Summary Calendar
KUMAR LAKHWINDER,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A97 541 696
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kumar Lakhwinder, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
decision (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In rejecting Lakhwinder’s
applications, the BIA found that Lakhwinder lacked credibility.
This court generally reviews only the BIA’s decision, not that
of the IJ, except to the extent that the IJ’s decision influences
the BIA. Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-60960
-2-
Because the BIA summarily affirmed, without opinion, the IJ’s
decision, the IJ’s decision is the final agency determination for
judicial review. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(ii).
The BIA articulated cogent reasons, supported by substantial
evidence in the record, for rejecting Lakhwinder’s testimony as
incredible. See Chun v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).
Absent credible testimony by Lakhwinder, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s determination that Lakhwinder failed to
establish that he was eligible for asylum and withholding of
removal. See id. Because Lakhwinder failed to challenge the IJ’s
denial of relief under the CAT in his appeal to the BIA, he has not
exhausted this issue. This court thus lacks jurisdiction to review
it. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, Lakhwinder’s petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --