Thais J. Delgado De Tagliaferri v. U.S. Atty. Gen. ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
July 2, 2007
No. 06-16542 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA Nos. A97-634-732 & A97-634-733
THAIS JOSEFINA DELGADO DE TAGLIAFERRI,
ANDREA C. TAGLIAFERRI,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(July 2, 2007)
Before BARKETT, WILSON, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Thais Delgado de Tagliaferri (“Delgado”) and her daughter Andrea
Tagliaferri, pro se, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her claims for
asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”) and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”).
On appeal, Delgado argues that the BIA erroneously denied her application
for asylum and withholding of removal and that her credible testimony establishes
past persecution by the Bolivarian Circles against her and her family due to both
her opposition to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and her leadership role in a
Catholic organization. Delgado also argues that the BIA erred in denying her
protection under CAT.
We review de novo the legal determinations of the BIA, and factual findings
are reviewed under the substantial evidence test. D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
388 F.3d 814, 817 (11th Cir. 2004). Under the substantial evidence test, we affirm
the BIA’s findings of fact unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.
Farquharson v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 246 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001).
Based upon review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we find that
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Delgado failed to
establish that she was entitled to asylum. Delgado did not establish that she was
2
qualified for asylum based on past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution. She was also unable to establish her entitlement to withholding of
removal or CAT relief.
PETITION DENIED .
3