Summary Calendar MARY WBENSON 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-60486
Summary Calendar
MARY W BENSON
Petitioner
v.
MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A29 348 491
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mary W. Benson, a native and citizen of Kenya, has filed a petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying her application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). In rejecting Benson’s application, the BIA found that Benson
lacked credibility.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 21, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-60486
2
On a petition for review of a BIA decision, this court reviews the factual
findings for substantial evidence. Ozdemir v. INS, 46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir. 1994).
Under the substantial evidence standard, this court will affirm the BIA’s
decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. at 8. “The
applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470
F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
The decision of the BIA to reject Benson’s testimony as incredible is based
on a reasonable interpretation of the record and therefore is supported by
substantial evidence. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).
Moreover, even if Benson’s testimony was deemed credible, the record does not
compel a finding that she is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the CAT. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. Accordingly, Benson’s
petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --