
    Ali YANTO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-61003.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Nov. 9, 2004.
    Alan Chung Chen, Richardson, TX, for Petitioner.
    Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration, Litigation, Marion Edward Guyton, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration, Litigation, John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.
    
      Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying asylum and the withholding of deportation by Ali Yanto is DENIED. This court gives great deference to an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision concerning an alien’s credibility, and such determination may not be overturned unless the record compels it. Lopez De Jesus v. I.N.S., 812 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir.2002); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.2002); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, a credibility determination will be upheld if it is based upon a reasonable interpretation of the record and supported by substantial evidence. Chun v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir.1994).

The finding that Yanto was not credible is based on a reasonable interpretation of the record and is supported by substantial evidence. Chun, 40 F.3d at 78-79. Yanto’s assertion that the IJ and the BIA failed to address certain “issues” raised by him is without merit. The BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention [made by a petitioner]. What is required is merely that it consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Efe, 293 F.3d at 907 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     