Summary Calendar ASTER AFOMIA GHEBREHANE 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-60121
Summary Calendar
ASTER AFOMIA GHEBREHANE
Petitioner
v.
MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A98 734 611
Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Aster Afomia Ghebrehane petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’s (BIA’s) decision denying her applications for asylum and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and, additionally, denying her motion to
reopen.
Because the BIA expressly adopted and affirmed the immigration judge’s
findings and holdings with regard to Ghebrehane’s eligibility for asylum and
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 22, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-60121
2
relief under the CAT, we review the immigration judge’s decision. Zhu v.
Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76,
78 (5th Cir. 1994). The immigration judge found that Ghebrehane was not
entitled to asylum because she was not a credible witness based on her
internally inconsistent testimony and the discrepancies that existed between her
testimony and the written documentation on the issues whether Ghebrehane
was born in Eritrea or Ethiopia, when she last resided in Eritrea, how long she
resided in Kenya, her residence and occupation in Kenya, and whether her
residence in Kenya was restricted. We hold that the immigration judge’s
credibility determination was based on a reasonable interpretation of the record
and was therefore supported by substantial evidence. See Chun, 40 F.3d at 79.
Similarly, we hold that the immigration judge’s denial of relief under the
CAT was also supported by substantial evidence. See Ontunez-Tursios v.
Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 353 (5th Cir. 2002). Insofar as Ghebrehane argues that
the BIA erred in denying her motion to reopen, she has not demonstrated an
abuse of discretion. See Pritchett v. INS, 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir. 1993).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --