
    YING LIN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-60099
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 5, 2008.
    David Jason Rodkin, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Edward C. Durant, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, Kristi Barrows, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.
    Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Ying Lin, a native and citizen of People’s Republic of China, 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 Lin’s application, the BIA found that Lin lacked credibility.

On a petition for review of a BIA decision, we review the factual findings for substantial evidence. Ozdemir v. INS, 46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir.1994). Under the substantial evidence standard, we 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 Lin’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). As the record does not compel a contrary conclusion, Lin’s asylum claim fails. See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir.2006). The adverse credibility determination also defeats Lin’s withholding of removal and CAT claims. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 306 (5th Cir.1997); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir.2002). Accordingly, Lin’s 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     