Yuri Vladimirovich BRUSNEV, Petitioner, v. Eric HOLDER, Attorney General, Respondent, 318 F. App'x 370

OPINION PER CURIAM. Petitioner Yuri Vladimirovich Brusnev, a Russian citizen, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention against Torture, alleging persecution at the hands of Chechen bandits due to his nationality and Russian Orthodox faith. He appeals the decision of an immigration judge, subsequently affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the Board”), denying relief and ordering his removal to Russia.

The immigration judge based the denial of relief on the untimeliness of petitioner’s asylum application and, more critically, upon a lack of credibility with respect to the testimony offered by petitioner. In cases like this one involving asylum and withholding of removal claims, “[w]e review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard.” Ndrecaj v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 667, 672 (6th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

This standard of review requires us to take findings of fact as conclusive “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. at 672-73 (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying this standard of review to the immigration judge’s factual findings with respect to credibility, we aré simply not “compelled to conclude to the contrary.” This is not to say that petitioner did not suffer hardship in Russia or that his testimony was false.

It is simply to say that those portions of his testimony that the immigration judge deemed credible were legally insufficient to support his claims. Having had an opportunity to review the administrative record, which includes the testimony provided to the immigration judge, as well as the briefs of the parties, we affirm the Board’s decision dated January 28, 2008, dismissing petitioner’s appeal. Because that decision clearly sets out the proper legal standards and properly defers to the factual findings of the immigration judge, a detailed written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose.

The petition for review is denied and the removal order is affirmed.