[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 2, 2006
No. 05-15711 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA No. A79-453-686
JOSE GABRIEL CASTRO VARGAS,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(June 2, 2006)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Gabriel Castro-Vargas seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) order denying asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration
and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(“CAT”).1
On appeal, Castro-Vargas argues that the IJ erred in denying his application
because he demonstrated that he is a refugee as defined under U.S. immigration
law by providing testimonial evidence that he has a well-founded fear of
persecution should he be forced to return to Colombia. Specifically, he contends
that the IJ erred in finding that he did not satisfy his burden of proof because the
court found that his testimony was credible, and the evidence demonstrates that he
has views against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (“FARC”), the
FARC has threatened him because of his views, and the FARC will follow through
with its threats. He further contends that the record shows that he faces a serious
risk of being kidnapped or killed should he return to Colombia.
1
Castro-Vargas did not raise any argument regarding the denial of his claim for CAT
relief on appeal. Therefore, that issue has been abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401
F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that, where an appellant fails to raise arguments
regarding an issue on appeal, that issue is deemed abandoned).
2
We review the IJ’s decision in this case, not the BIA’s, because the BIA
affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, thereby making the IJ’s decision the
final agency determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4); Mendoza v. U.S.
Attorney Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1284 n.1 (11th Cir. 2003).
The IJ’s factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial evidence
test, and we “must affirm the [IJ’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).
Based upon this record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
IJ’s decision that Castro-Vargas was not entitled to asylum or withholding of
removal under the INA. Because Castro-Vargas did not show that he suffered past
persecution or that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a
protected ground, he did not establish eligibility for asylum. Accordingly, Castro-
Vargas also failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Al
Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292-93.
PETITION DENIED.
3