Case: 09-60810 Document: 00511267297 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 19, 2010
No. 09-60810
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
BERLY MARITZA RAMOS,
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. A095 908 099
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Berly Ramos petitions for review of the determination by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) that she is not entitled to withholding of removal.
Ramos contends that she is entitled to withholding of removal because of past
persecution and the likelihood of future persecution on account of her
membership in a particular social group, namely Students for Health (SFH),
which she contends incurred the enmity of gangs because the group encouraged
citizens to report criminal activity.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-60810 Document: 00511267297 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2010
No. 09-60810
To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, Ramos must show that
it is more likely than not her life or freedom would be threatened by persecution
on account of one of five protected categories, including membership in a
particular social group. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). We
review the BIA’s determination for substantial evidence; we will not reverse
unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. at 905-06.
Ramos’s arguments amount primarily to a claim that she has suffered
gang violence as a result of her activities with SFH, but there was little to no
evidence that membership in SFH is an immutable characteristic qualifying it
as a particular social group, or that she would continue to face persecution now
that she no longer belongs to SFH. See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th
Cir. 2006); Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2006). We
cannot say that the record compels the conclusion that she established eligibility
for withholding of removal.
The petition for review is DENIED.
2