
    Tawuya KAPISAUANHU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60978
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 20, 2006.
    Labi Akere, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Tawuya Kapisauanhu, a native and citizen of Zimbabwe, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum, for withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Kapisauanhu contends that her application for asylum application was wrongly denied as untimely. This court lacks jurisdiction to review this claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Zhu v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 521, 527 (5th Cir.2004). Accordingly, this portion of the petition for review is DISMISSED.

With respect to the denial of withholding of removal, Kapisauanhu has failed to show that the record compels reversal of the finding of the BIA and IJ that she failed to give credible testimony that she is entitled to withholding of removal. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997). With respect to the denial of relief under the CAT, Kapisauanhu has abandoned any challenge to the denial of that relief. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n. 15 (5th Cir.1993). The remainder of the petition seeking review of the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of the application for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     