Gomez v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit April 27, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60753
ELIZABETH GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A96-103-766)
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elizabeth Gomez, a native and citizen of Gambia, petitions
this Court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”), dismissing her appeal and affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Gomez’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
The IJ concluded that although Gomez had been subjected to
beatings and harassment by her uncle, the incidents she relayed
were sporadic in nature over a period of years and resulted from
family relationship, not from her conversion from Islam to the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Accordingly, the IJ
determined that Gomez failed to demonstrate that she had suffered
past persecution based on her race, religion, or social group and
failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. In
dismissing Gomez’s appeal and affirming the IJ, the BIA concluded
that Gomez failed to show past persecution in Gambia and failed to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected
ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158,
if she were to return to Gambia. The BIA also determined Gomez
failed to establish grounds for withholding of removal or relief
under the CAT.
We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and findings of
fact for substantial evidence. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d
442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). “The substantial evidence standard
requires only that the BIA’s decision be supported by record
evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288
F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). Under this standard, this Court
will reverse the BIA’s decision only if evidence compels the
contrary conclusion. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.
1994).
2
After a thorough review of the briefs, the parties’ oral
arguments, and the record on appeal, we cannot conclude that the
evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA.
Accordingly, we deny Gomez’s petition for review essentially for
the reasons provided by the BIA.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3