IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60695

Summary Calendar

NELLY OSPINA-RAMIREZ; DEYANIRA MORIANO-OSPINA; CENEYDA M.

MORIANO-OSPINA; ALEXIS H. MORIANO OSPINA,

Petitioners

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A089 102 085 

A089 102 086 

A089 102 087 

A089 102 088

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nelly Ospina-Ramirez (Ospina) is a native and citizen of Colombia who

admitted entering the United States illegally with her three minor daughters,

Deyanira Moriano-Ospina, Ceneyda Moriano-Ospina, and Alexis

Moriano-Ospina. All conceded removability but asserted identical claims for

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 4, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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: 11-60695 Document: 00511875825 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2012
No. 11-60695

asylum and withholding of removal based on Ospina’s allegations. The

Immigration Judge (IJ) rejected their claims, and the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) dismissed their appeal. They filed a timely petition for review. 

Both the IJ and the BIA concluded that Ospina and her daughters were

not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal because Ospina failed to make

the requisite showing of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A). We will affirm the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels

a contrary result. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.

1996). “Congress did not intend to confer eligibility for asylum on all persons

who suffer harm from civil disturbances – conditions that necessarily have

political implications.” Campos-Guardado v. INS, 809 F.2d 285, 290 (5th Cir.

1987). Accordingly, an alien seeking asylum or withholding of removal has the

burden of showing “some particularized connection between the feared

persecution and” one of the five grounds listed in § 1101(a)(42)(A). Faddoul v.

INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994); see Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405,

410 (5th Cir. 2006). 

At the hearing before the IJ, Ospina offered a vague and rambling account

of relatives or other people who were killed, kidnaped, or threatened by the

guerrillas during the armed conflict. She said the guerrillas once tried to kidnap

her, but their motivation was not clear. Aside from an unexhausted and

meritless contention that her family is a “particular social group,” she has never

alleged or identified any social group or political opinion for which she or her

daughters might be targeted. She has never alleged that she was targeted for

her race or nationality, and she merely mentioned “religious persecution” before

the BIA without another word of discussion or analysis. Instead, her claims of

persecution concerned the fear of her family becoming victims of the ongoing

warfare between the Colombian government and the guerrillas. Ospina feared

that she and her daughters would become “victims of war” if they returned home

2

Case: 11-60695 Document: 00511875825 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2012
No. 11-60695

and, while she primarily feared the guerrillas, she also feared the government. 

The record amply demonstrates that Ospina failed to show the requisite

likelihood of persecution “on account” of a protected factor. 

Ospina asserted to the IJ and BIA that she feared persecution for refusing

to join the guerrillas. She has waived this issue by failing to brief it on appeal. 

See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004). In any event, coercive

recruitment does not establish persecution on account of a protected factor. INS

v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992); see Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 669

(5th Cir. 2002). 

Because Ospina has failed to show “a well-founded fear of persecution on

account of” a protected factor, her claims for asylum on behalf of herself and her

daughters must fail. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To show eligibility for withholding of

removal, Ospina and her daughters were required to “demonstrate a ‘clear

probability’ of persecution” on account of a protected factor. Chen v. Gonzales,

470 F.3d 1131, 1138 (5th Cir. 2006). This requires showing “a higher objective

likelihood of persecution than that required for asylum.” Id.; see Ozdemir v.

INS, 46 F.3d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1994). Because Ospina and her daughters cannot

meet the standard for asylum, neither can they meet the more onerous standard

for withholding of removal. See Ozdemir, 46 F.3d at 8. 

The evidence does not compel a decision in favor of Ospina and her

daughters. See Carbajal-Gonzalez, 78 F.3d at 197. The petition for review is

DENIED. 

3

Case: 11-60695 Document: 00511875825 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/2012