Papaj v. Gonzales

Filing 920070723

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 23, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60678 Summary Calendar TAULANT PAPAJ, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. -------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A98 705 919 -------------------Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Taulant Papaj petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration decision to Appeals deny (BIA) affirming for the immigration judge's of

his

application

asylum,

withholding

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Papaj argues that he established that he would face persecution if he returned to Albania because of a blood feud against the Papaj family instigated by the Mulia family. The record does not compel

a conclusion contrary to the BIA's determination that Papaj had not established that he suffered past persecution, or that he has a 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of his membership in a social group. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). There is no evidence in

the record showing that the government sanctioned any persecution against the Papaj family or Papaj personally. 115 F.3d 299, 302 n.2 (5th Cir. 1997). See Mikhael v. INS,

The BIA's determination

that Papaj is not entitled to asylum is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed. 78 (5th Cir. 1994). See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76,

As Papaj cannot satisfy the standard for

asylum, he cannot meet the more demanding standard for withholding of removal. See Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 306.

Papaj's CAT claim is likewise unavailing, as he has failed to show that he will likely be tortured under government acquiescence if he is returned to Albania. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1); Efe v. Papaj's petition for

Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). review is DENIED.

2