Summary Calendar NAZRUL ISLAM IMTIAZ v. Michael Bmukasey, U Sattorney 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-60024
Summary Calendar
NAZRUL ISLAM IMTIAZ
Petitioner
v.
MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A73 544 941
Before GARWOOD, GARZA and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nazrul Islam Imtiaz petitions for review of the final order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s
(IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). On a petition for review of a BIA
decision, this court reviews factual findings for substantial evidence and
questions of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 13, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-60024
2
2001). The substantial-evidence standard requires only that the BIA’s
conclusion be based on the evidence presented and that the decision is
substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.
1996). The IJ has the duty to make credibility determinations concerning
witnesses. Chun v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
Imtiaz’s brief supporting his petition for review points to no evidence in
the record, other than his own testimony, to support his argument attacking the
credibility determination. Imtiaz has not shown that the record compels that the
finding be reversed. The IJ’s adverse credibility determination, adopted by the
BIA, is supported by substantial evidence and should be upheld. Chun, 40 F.3d
at 79. To the extent that Imtiaz’s brief raises his other claims of non-
discretionary withholding of removal and CAT relief, substantial evidence also
supports the rejection of his applications for withholding of removal and for CAT
relief. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906-08 (5th Cir. 2002). Imtiaz’s petition
for review is
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --