[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
August 10, 2005
No. 05-10229 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency Nos. A95-228-614
and A95-228-615
JUAN MANUEL LOPEZ MOLANO,
YAZMIN PAEZ DURAN, et al.,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(August 10, 2005)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Manuel Lopez-Molano, his wife, Jazmine Paez-Duran, and his
daughter, Paola Sofia Lopez-Paez, (collectively “the petitioners”), petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) decision affirming without
opinion the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum and withholding of
removal. Because the petitioners’ asylum proceedings commenced after April 1,
1997, the permanent rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) apply. See Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003).
To the extent that the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions were based on a legal
determination, this court’s review is de novo. D-Muhumed v. U. S. Att’y Gen., 388
F.3d 814, 817 (11th Cir. 2004). Factual determinations are reviewed under the
substantial evidence test, and this court “must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is
supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283-84 (11th Cir.
2001) (quotation omitted). This court “cannot engage in fact-finding on appeal,
nor may [it] weigh evidence that was not previously considered below.” Id. at
1278. Therefore, a finding of fact will be reversed “only when the record compels
reversal; the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not
2
enough to justify a reversal.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir.
2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2245 (2005).
After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that
the petition for review is due to be denied because substantial evidence supports
the IJ’s finding that (1) Lopez-Molano’s testimony was not credible; (2) the
petitioners were not eligible for asylum because they failed to establish past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of Lopez-
Molano’s political activities; and (3) Lopez-Molano was not eligible for
withholding of removal because he failed to establish that it was more likely than
not that he would be persecuted or tortured upon his return to Columbia.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
3