Carolina Gomez-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 459 F. App'x 439 ( 2012 )

Case: 11-60253 Document: 00511742463 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 31, 2012
No. 11-60253
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
CAROLINA GOMEZ-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A088 926 980
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carolina Gomez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions this
court for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. She alleged in
her application that she warranted relief because she had been abused by a
Colombian police colonel whom she had been dating. The immigration judge (IJ)
found Gomez-Rodriguez to be credible, but held that she was not entitled to
relief because she was not a member of a protected group, her incident with the
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 11-60253 Document: 00511742463 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2012
No. 11-60253
colonel did not qualify as past persecution, she could have remained safely in
Colombia at her family farm, and she had failed to show that she had a
well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s findings
and dismissed the appeal.
In her petition for review, Gomez-Rodriguez argues that she met the
requisite criteria and should have been granted asylum. This court will uphold
the determination to deny asylum unless the petitioner shows that the action
was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747,
749 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the record supports the BIA’s decision, Gomez-
Rodriguez has failed to make such a showing.
Accordingly, her petition for review is DENIED.
2