
    Manoochehr PARAHAM, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-60479.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided May 12, 2005.
    Felipe De Jesus Millan, El Paso, TX, for Manoochehr Paraham.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Allen W. Hausman, Aviva Lea Poczter, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for John Ashcroft.
    John Ashcroft, pro se.
    Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Iranian citizen Manoochehr Paraham petitions this court for review of the removal order issued by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Paraham argues that the IJ erred by finding him noncredible regarding his conversion to Catholicism; that he established a well-founded fear of persecution sufficient to obtain asylum; and that he established eligibility for relief by way of withholding of removal and the Convention Against Torture.

The IJ’s credibility determination was based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence and was supported by substantial evidence. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.1994). Paraham’s history of dishonesty with immigration authorities and his lack of knowledge about the Bible and the Catholic sacraments supported the IJ’s determination that Paraham’s claim of conversion to Catholicism was not credible. Additionally, the IJ’s determination that Paraham did not show a well-founded fear of future persecution were he to return to Iran was supported by substantial evidence. See Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444-45 (5th Cir.2001). For the same reasons Paraham failed to establish his asylum claim, he also failed to show entitlement to relief by way of withholding of removal, see Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir.2002), or the Convention Against Torture. See id. at 906-07.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     