Renteria 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
March 16, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60795
Summary Calendar
CYNTHIA RENTERIA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A71 515 500
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cynthia Renteria, a native and citizen of Mexico, has
petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision
denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
In rejecting Renteria’s applications, the IJ determined that
Renteria had failed to prove that she was due relief on any
authorized ground. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, finding
that Renteria had failed to meet her burden of proving
entitlement to asylum or withholding of removal. We review the

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 04-60795
-2-
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).
While in an abusive relationship, Renteria sought assistance
for domestic violence at only one police department in the entire
country and was dissatisfied with the results. It cannot be said
that one police department’s failure to resolve Renteria’s
complaint to her satisfaction constitutes past persecution by the
Mexican government.
Nor can Renteria prove a well-founded fear of future
persecution. “To establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution, an alien must demonstrate a subjective fear of
persecution, and that fear must be objectively reasonable.” Zhao
v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Even assuming that
Renteria had a subjective fear of persecution, she cannot show
that her fear was objectively reasonable. Renteria failed to
fully explore the possibility that she could find sufficient
protection from the domestic abuse in her native country. In
addition, Renteria has not demonstrated a sincere effort to
relocate in her native country. Accordingly, Renteria has not
established that her fear of future persecution is objectively
reasonable and her asylum claim fails. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at
307.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 04-60795
-3-
Because Renteria has not met the requirements necessary to
obtain asylum, she also cannot meet the more onerous standards
required to obtain withholding of removal and her claim for
withholding of removal also fails.
The BIA’s decision denying Renteria asylum and withholding
of removal are supported by substantial evidence. See Efe v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly,
Renteria’s petition for review is DENIED. Her request for the
appointment of counsel is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --