Case ID: f-appx_459/html/0439-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carolina GOMEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-60253
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 31, 2012.
    Salvador Colon, Law Office of Salvador Colon, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Colin James Tucker, Esq., Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, Remi Da Rocha-Afo-du, Esq., Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    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 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.