IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60162

Summary Calendar

BLANCA ROSA CONTRERAS GUARDADO, also known as Ana Rosa 

Contreras, also known as Blanca Rosa-Contreras,

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. A087 934 739

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Blanca Rosa Contreras Guardado, a native and citizen of Honduras, 

seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirming, without 

opinion, the immigration judge’s (IJ) denying her application for withholding 

of removal. Because the BIA affirmed without opinion, we review the IJ’s 

decision as the final agency determination. Nakimbugwe v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 5, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60162 Document: 00512523068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2014
No. 13-60162

281, 283 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). We review the legal conclusions de 

novo; the factual findings, for substantial evidence. Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 

469 F.3d 109, 113 (5th Cir. 2006); e.g., Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 

(5th Cir. 2006) (applying standard in reviewing denial of withholding of 

removal). Under the substantial evidence standard, findings will be upheld 

“unless the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to 

find otherwise”. Tesfamichael, 469 F.3d at 113 (citation omitted). 

An applicant is eligible for withholding of removal if she establishes “her 

life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on 

account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, 

or political opinion”. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b) (withholding of removal). An 

applicant who has suffered past persecution on account of one of these five 

characteristics enjoys a rebuttable presumption that her life or freedom would 

be threatened if removed. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i). Otherwise, an applicant 

must establish she will more likely than not suffer persecution “on account of 

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political 

opinion upon removal”. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2) (emphasis added). An applicant 

cannot establish such a threat of persecution if she could avoid persecution by 

relocating within the country of removal, and relocation would be reasonable. 

Id. (Of the five alternative bases for which persecution must exist, Contreras 

relies on “membership in a particular social group”. Because, as discussed 

infra, the IJ’s findings on persecution provide adequate grounds on which to 

deny relief, we need not reach whether the IJ erred in finding Contreras failed 

to demonstrate a cognizable social group. See, e.g., Abbas v. Holder, 355 F. 

App’x 806, 812 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (unpublished).)

Our court has defined “persecution” as “the infliction of suffering or 

harm”, including non-physical harm such as “the deliberate imposition of 

2

 Case: 13-60162 Document: 00512523068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2014
No. 13-60162

severe economic disadvantage or the deprivation of liberty, food, housing, 

employment or other essentials of life”. Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 

(5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1996)). 

Nevertheless, the term “does not encompass all treatment that our society 

regards as unfair, unjust or even unlawful or unconstitutional. If persecution 

were defined that expansively, a significant percentage of the world’s 

population would qualify for asylum in this country-and it seems most unlikely 

that Congress intended such a result”. Tesfamichael, 469 F.3d at 114 (citation 

omitted). In other words, “[p]ersecution is an extreme concept that does not 

include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive”. Eduard, 379 

F.3d at 187 n.4 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Contreras asserts she suffered past persecution at the hands of a man 

named Chirino, with whom she lived for six years. In support of her claim, 

Contreras testified Chirino abused her and her children, including one incident 

where she reported a beating to the police and was told there were no police 

cars available to respond. Contreras also received a letter from Chirino, 

forwarded by her mother in 2007, in which Chirino threatened to kill her if she 

returned to Honduras. The IJ found Contreras to be generally credible but 

determined the harm she experienced was not so extreme as to constitute 

persecution. The evidence does not compel a contrary result. See, e.g., Thuri 

v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[W]e are not persuaded that a 

reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”.).

The IJ also determined Contreras could avoid future threats by 

relocating within Honduras. Contreras failed to challenge this aspect of the 

decision in her brief and therefore has abandoned the issue. See id. In any 

event, the IJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, in the form 

of Contreras’ own testimony that, after leaving Chirino, she relocated to

3

 Case: 13-60162 Document: 00512523068 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/05/2014
No. 13-60162

another part of Honduras and worked in a factory there, without incident, for 

over a year. 

DENIED. 

4

 Case: 13-60162 Document: 00512523068 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/05/2014