
    Agnes Tanyinow ARREY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-60036
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 23, 2007.
    Agnes Tanyinow Arrey, Carrollton, TX, pro se.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, John Clifford Cunningham, Edward C. Durant, 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 JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Agnes Tanyinow Arrey petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) that denied her application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention against Torture (CAT). Arrey does not challenge the determination that her asylum application was untimely, and she has waived any challenge to this issue. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n. 15 (5th Cir.1993).

Arrey does challenge the adverse credibility determination that rendered her ineligible for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT. “Credibility determinations are given great deference.... [We] cannot replace the Board or IJ’s determinations concerning witness credibility or ultimate factual findings based on credibility determinations with [our] own determinations.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir.2002). To prevail, Arrey must show that the evidence compels a contrary finding. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.1994).

Arrey contends that the IJ improperly focused on discrepancies in her name that were easily explained, that the IJ made erroneous factual findings based on misunderstandings of her testimony, that her failure to include parts of her story in her asylum application should not be held against her, and that the IJ should have given more weight to her documentary evidence. Arrey has not shown that the evidence presented compels a conclusion on credibility that is contrary to the one reached by the IJ. See Chun, 40 F.3d at 79. Accordingly, we may not reverse the IJ’s finding. See id.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     