Mary W. Benson, a native and citizen of Kenya, has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In rejecting Benson’s application, the BIA found that Benson lacked credibility.

On a petition for review of a BIA decision, this court reviews the factual findings for substantial evidence. Ozdemir v. INS, 46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir. 1994). Under the substantial evidence standard, this court will affirm the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. at 8. “The applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).

The decision of the BIA to reject Benson’s testimony as incredible is based on a reasonable interpretation of the record and therefore is supported by substantial evidence. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreover, even if Benson’s testimony was deemed credible, the record does not compel a finding that she is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134. Accordingly, Benson’s petition for review is DENIED.