Sithole, et al v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 26, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60224
Summary Calendar
ANGELINE SITHOLE; DAVIS CHILUNDO; TOTIWE
RUMBIDZAI CHILUNDO; DAVIES TADIWA CHILUNDO,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A96 276 090
No. A96 276 091
No. A96 276 092
No. A96 276 093
--------------------

-- 1 of 3 --

* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Angeline Sithole, Davis Chilundo, Totiwe Chilundo and Davies
Chilundo, natives and citizens of Zimbabwe, petition for review of
an order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an
order of the immigrations judge (“IJ”) denying their consolidated
application for asylum and withholding of removal and for relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Sithole, the lead
applicant, concedes that her asylum application was untimely but
contends that she has demonstrated changed circumstances that ma-
terially affect her eligibility for asylum. We lack jurisdiction
to review this claim, which is therefore dismissed. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3); Zhu v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 521, 527 (5th Cir. 2005).
In rejecting the applications, the BIA found that Sithole
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 influenced the BIA. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302
(5th Cir. 1997). Because the BIA summarily affirmed, without opin-
ion, the IJ’s decision is the final agency determination for judi-
cial review. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(iii).
The IJ articulated cogent reasons, supported by substantial
evidence in the record, for rejecting Sithole’s testimony as in-

-- 2 of 3 --

3
credible. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). Absent
credible testimony by Sithole, substantial evidence supports the
IJ’s determination that she failed to establish that she was eligi-
ble for withholding of removal. See id. She also has failed to
show error in the IJ’s denial of relief under the CAT. See Efe v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the pe-
titions for review are denied.
PETITIONS DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION;
PETITIONS DENIED IN PART.

-- 3 of 3 --