Case ID: f-appx_306/html/0325-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

German Zacarías VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-2948.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 1, 2008.
    Filed: Jan. 7, 2009.
    Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen German Zacarías Vasquez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Having carefully reviewed the record, we deny the petition. See Carmenatte-Lopez v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 540, 541 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review).

We conclude that, given Vasquez’s asserted bases for asylum and the record below, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Vasquez did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 479-80, 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (upholding denial of asylum to Guatemalan citizen who claimed to have fled guerilla forces attempting to recruit him, as record did not show guerillas sought to recruit him based on his political opinion; it is not sufficient that guerillas were attempting to fill their ranks); Gomez v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 543, 545-47 (8th Cir.2005) (to reverse finding that alleged persecution was not based on protected ground, record must compel finding that protected ground motivated persecutors’ actions; asylum applicants presented only conclusory allegation that soldiers’ motivation in beating them was related to imputed political opinion, where soldiers said nothing about applicants’ political opinions and no other event supported such an imputation). Vasquez’s claim for withholding of removal — which carries a more rigorous burden of proof— necessarily fails as well. See Makatengkeng v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 876, 885 (8th Cir .2007).

Vasquez’s remaining arguments provide no basis for granting his petition for review, and accordingly we deny it.