IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60876

Summary Calendar

LILIANA ISABEL PONCE-CALIX,

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 841 562

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Honduras native Liliana Isabel Ponce-Calix petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her application for asylum,

withholding-of-removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

She challenges only the denial of withholding-of-removal, however, and therefore

waives any challenge to the denial of other relief. Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d

830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 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: 11-60876 Document: 00512033199 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2012
No. 11-60876

Ponce contends her credible testimony established she suffered past

persecution in Honduras based on her encounters with a neighbor, Correia, and

his family, which persecution was on account of her membership in a particular

social group: “Honduran women who have been victims of violence or abuse by

Honduran men who believe women are to live under male domination”. She

asserts her testimony shows her life was threatened first by Correia and later

by his parents, and this was sufficient to qualify her for withholding-of-removal.

The BIA’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; its findings of fact, under

the substantial evidence test. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). 

The BIA’s determination that Ponce is not eligible for withholding-of-removal is

a finding of fact. Id. at 906. To prevail, she must show the evidence compels a

contrary conclusion such that no reasonable fact-finder could have reached the

BIA’s decision. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).

The BIA determined Ponce did not establish a nexus between any

persecution in Honduras and a statutorily protected ground. 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(42)

(protecting refugees who suffer persecution in home countries due to race,

religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion). The record establishes

Correia and his parents acted for purely personal reasons, not because of Ponce’s

membership in any particular social group. This renders her ineligible for

relief. E.g., Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 792-93 (5th Cir. 2004). As the

immigration judge found, Ponce’s testimony shows “her entire family”, not just

the female members, was subject to threats from Correia and his parents. The

evidence further establishes that her family, including her sister and children,

continue to live in Honduras without incident, which undercuts her claim of

likely future persecution. E.g., Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 193 (5th Cir.

2004). 

DENIED. 

2

Case: 11-60876 Document: 00512033199 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2012