United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 7, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60128
Summary Calendar
FERNANDO ALONSO CRUZ; MAGDA CONSTANZA SANCHEZ; NICOLAS CRUZ;
SANTIAGO CRUZ,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 906 269
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
The petitioners, Fernando Cruz (Cruz), his wife, Magda
Sanchez, and their two minor children, Nicolas Cruz and Santiago
Cruz are citizens of Columbia. They petition this court to review
the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying
Cruz’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture.
Cruz argues that the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA erred
in denying his request for asylum. According to Cruz, the Fuerzas
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-61073
-2-
Armadas Revolucioarios de Columbia (the “F.A.R.C.”), a
revolutionary group with a violent presence throughout Columbia,
oppose Cruz’s political activity and community service as a member
of the Liberal Party because he holds ideals contrary to theirs.
Cruz contends that threats by telephone and an incident in which
armed men wearing F.A.R.C. armbands were searching for him at a
job site constitute past persecution. We review legal conclusions
de novo and findings of fact for substantial evidence. Lopez-Gomez
v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). We will not
reverse a BIA decision unless the evidence is “‘so compelling that
no reasonable fact-finder could conclude against it.’” Moin v.
Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 2003).
To establish eligibility for asylum, an alien must demonstrate
that he was persecuted or that he has a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of “race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Lopez-Gomez,
263 F.3d at 444-45. Persecution is the “infliction of suffering or
harm, under government sanction.” Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d
579, 583 (5th Cir. 1996). “[P]ersecution requires more than a few
isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation,
unaccompanied by any physical punishment, infliction of harm, or
significant deprivation of liberty.” Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d
182, 187 n.4 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted). A fear is
considered well-founded if the alien can establish, to a reasonable
No. 04-61073
-3-
degree, that his return to his country would be intolerable.
Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 305 (5th Cir. 1997).
The IJ concluded that Cruz did not establish past persecution
or a well-founded fear of persecution based on any of the
statutorily-enumerated grounds. After reviewing the record and the
briefs, we conclude that the IJ’s decision as adopted by the BIA is
supported by substantial evidence and that the record does not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Moin, 335 F.3d at 419; Lopez-
Gomez, 263 F.3d at 444-45.
The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than
the standard for granting asylum. Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 306. Cruz
must demonstrate that a clear probability exists that he will be
persecuted if he is removed. Id. Cruz did not make the required
showing for asylum; thus, he is not eligible for withholding of
removal. Id. at 306 & n.10.
Finally, Cruz has not shown that it is more likely than not
that he would be tortured by anybody acting in an official capacity
upon return to Columbia. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). Thus, he is
not entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture. 8
C.F.R. § 208.18.
The petition for review is DENIED.