Ponce Garcia, et al v. Gonzales

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
F I L E D
July 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60597
Summary Calendar
ELEONORA PONCE GARCIA; ORIANA N. HERNANDEZ PONCE,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A97 186 886
BIA No. A97 186 887
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eleonora Ponce Garcia and her minor child Oriana N.
Hernandez Ponce, who are natives and citizens of Venezuela,
petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of the immigration judge’s
(IJ) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-60597
-2-
Ponce Garcia has abandoned the issue that the IJ erroneously
determined that she suffered no past persecution by failing to
provide any argument to support her assertion. See Rodriguez v.
INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993).
Ponce Garcia also asserts that the IJ erred in denying her
asylum application on the basis that she had not established a
well-grounded fear of future persecution. Given that Ponce
Garcia’s immediate supervisors at her previous job with the
general directorate of education in the Venezuelan state of
Miranda also spoke out against the government of Hugo Chavez and
have remained unharmed and employed in their prominent state
positions, Ponce Garcia has not shown that she possesses a well-
grounded fear of future persecution. See Guevara-Flores v. INS,
786 F.2d 1242, 1249 (5th Cir. 1986).
We uphold the BIA’s determination that Ponce Garcia failed
to carry her burden of establishing her eligibility for asylum as
it is supported by substantial evidence. See Ontunez-Tursios v.
Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2002). Because Ponce
Garcia does not specifically the challenge the denial of relief
insofar as she sought withholding of removal or relief under the
CAT, such claims are deemed abandoned. See Rodriguez, 9 F.3d at
414 n.15.
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --