
    Syed Amir Hamza BUKHARI, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-60905
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 10, 2008.
    Sarfraz Aftab Sharif, Sharif & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, John Clifford Cunningham, Edward C. Durant, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Syed Amir Hamza Bukhari, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his request for withholding of removal. When, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997).

Bukhari, who sought withholding of removal based on his political opinion, argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is not supported by the record. Our review of the record establishes that the IJ’s findings that Bukhari’s testimony is incredible is supported by the record. For example, Bukhari testified that he was his district’s General Secretary for a political party that opposed the government of Pakistan, that he organized and engaged in anti-government demonstrations, and that he published anti-government pamphlets. None of those facts were mentioned in Bukhari’s application for withholding of removal. Bukhari also testified that he was hospitalized after being jailed and beaten by police for three days because of his political activities. However, he did not produce any documentation of his hospitalization and treatment.

Bukhari has not shown that the record compels this court to substitute its judgment for that of the IJ. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994).

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     