Opinion ID: 40536
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gomez’s Requested Relief

Text: Gomez next argues that the IJ erred by finding that she did not establish her burden of proof with respect to her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.
To prevail on her claim for asylum, Gomez would have to prove that she is a refugee, i.e., she is unable or unwilling to return to Colombia “because of persecution or a well-founded fear 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) (defining refugee). In order to prove a well-founded fear of persecution, the petitioner must show that her subjective fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable. See Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 304. Gomez contends that she established a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her political opinion and membership in a particular social group.5 As evidence of her well-founded fear of persecution, 5 Gomez does not specifically challenge the IJ’s finding that she did not meet her burden of proof for past persecution. Rather, she challenges only the IJ’s finding that she did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Pet’r Br. at -7- Gomez points to her testimony that she received death threats from the ELN, the ELN killed two of her colleagues, and her mother received death threats concerning Gomez’s eventual return to Colombia. The IJ determined that Gomez had failed to show that her fear of persecution was objectively reasonable. See id. As an example, the IJ noted that Gomez had failed to show that she could not go to the Colombian authorities with her death threats from members of the ELN. A.R. at 57-58. Based on the evidence, the IJ concluded that Gomez had not established that she was a refugee and denied her request for asylum. Id. at 59. Under the deferential standard of review we accord to the BIA’s, and here, IJ’s decision, we cannot conclude that Gomez established that she was a refugee entitled to the discretionary relief of asylum. Although persecution generally refers to malfeasance by government authorities, this court has recognized that persecution can occur at the hands of private persons when the government is wholly unable or unwilling to intervene. Adebisi v. INS, 952 F.2d 910, 913-14 (5th Cir. 1992) (noting that “the BIA extends the qualifying range of persecution fear to include acts by groups the government is unable or unwilling to control”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Gomez has failed 23-24. Accordingly, her claim for asylum based on past persecution is waived. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994) (“An appellant abandons all issues not raised and argued in its initial brief on appeal.”). -8- to show, however, that she could not go to the Colombian authorities or that the Colombian authorities were unable or unwilling to intervene. See id. The record shows--and in fact, the IJ found--that the Colombian government is actively opposing guerilla organizations, such as the ELN. See, e.g., A.R. at 54, 176, 183, 200-01. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that Gomez has failed to “show that the evidence [s]he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED with respect to Gomez’s claim for asylum. 2. Withholding of Removal and Protection Under the CAT Gomez spends very little time in her brief--if any-- discussing her withholding of removal and CAT claims. She sets out the legal standard for withholding of removal and then, in a short and cursory fashion, recognizes that the standard for withholding of removal “is a more rigorous standard than the one required for asylum.” See Pet’r Br. at 25. Gomez fails to explain, however, how the IJ erred in denying her claims for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT. In fact, she completely fails to mention her CAT claim in her brief. By failing to brief any argument concerning the IJ’s denial of her withholding of removal and CAT claims, Gomez has abandoned these -9- claims on appeal.6 See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004) (noting that the petitioner waived her CAT claim by failing to raise it in her petition for review); Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[G]rounds for reversal not set forth in a petitioner’s (or appellant’s) opening brief in this Court are normally waived.”); see also CalderonOntiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986) (noting that this court does not consider issues that the party failed to brief). Because Gomez waived her withholding of removal and CAT claims by failing to brief them on appeal, the petition for review is DENIED with respect to these claims.