
    Khady Thiam LUTUTA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-61055.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided March 28, 2006.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, John Joseph Gaupp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Catherine M. Maraist, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, pro se.
    
      Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Khady Thiam Lututa, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision dismissing as frivolous Lututa’s application for asylum, for withholding of deportation, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Lututa has failed to show that the record compels reversal of the finding of the IJ that Lututa failed to give credible testimony that she is entitled to asylum or withholding of removal and that the application is frivolous. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 306 (5th Cir.1997). Because Lututa does not argue in her brief that she is entitled to relief under the CAT, she has abandoned any challenge to the denial of that relief. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n. 15 (5th Cir.1993). Accordingly, Lututa’s petition for review of the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s dismissal as frivolous of her application for asylum, 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     