Papaj v. Gonzales

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 23, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
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 Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s
decision to deny his application for asylum, withholding of
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

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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. See Mikhael v. INS,
115 F.3d 299, 302 n.2 (5th Cir. 1997). The BIA’s determination
that Papaj is not entitled to asylum is supported by substantial
evidence and will not be disturbed. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76,
78 (5th Cir. 1994). 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.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). Papaj’s petition for
review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --