
    Jorge Ulices BENAVIDES-ALTAMIRANO, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-61151
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 12, 2008.
    Elizabeth M. Mendoza Macias, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    
      Thomas Ward Hussey, John Clifford Cunningham, John S. Hogan, Peter Harold Matson, Mary Jane Candaux, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Sendees, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., pro se.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jorge Ulices Benavides-Altamirano (Benavides), a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions this court for review of an order of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying asylum and relief from removal. The BIA affirmed the conclusion of the immigration judge (IJ) that Benavides was not credible and had not made a credible showing of past persecution or the likelihood of future persecution by Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

Benavides contends that the IJ’s credibility determination was not supported by the record. The IJ averted to significant inconsistencies in Benavides’s statements and testimony in the record. Benavides therefore fails to show that the record compels a conclusion that he was credible. See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir.2006). He thus fails to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir.2005).

Benavides asks this court to take judicial notice that Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega has been elected President of Nicaragua. This “attempt to argue officially noticed facts for the first time in this forum is misplaced, for we cannot weigh evidence that has not been brought previously before the [BIA].” Rivere-Cruz v. INS, 948 F.2d 962, 967 (5th Cir.1991).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cut.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