Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03706/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03706-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ingri Y. Aguilar-Mendez
Petitioner
John D. Ashcroft
Respondent
Concepcion Mendez-Lazaro
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3706

___________

Concepcion Mendez-Lazaro, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. *

*

John D. Ashcroft, United States *

Attorney General, *

*

Respondent, *

____________________________ * Petition for Review of an

* Order of the Board of

Ingri Y. Aguilar-Mendez, * Immigration Appeals

*

Petitioner, * [Unpublished]

*

v. *

*

John D. Ashcroft, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: October 21, 2004

Filed: November 8, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 03-3706 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2004 Entry ID: 1831340 
-2-

Concepcion Mendez-Lazaro (Mendez) and her daughter, citizens of Guatemala,

petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming

an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of their application for asylum and withholding

of removal. For reversal, Mendez argues on behalf of her family that she showed past

persecution and that the government failed to show that the conditions in Guatemala

have changed. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition.

We review for substantial evidence. See Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360

F.3d 915, 917-19 (8th Cir. 2004) (“evidence must be such that it would be possible

for a reasonable fact-finder to reach the same conclusions”). We conclude that a

reasonable fact-finder could have found that Mendez was not a victim of past

persecution, because there was no clear evidence that--as Mendez claims--her father

and sister were murdered because of the father’s political opinion. See id. at 917-19

(rejecting Guatemalan citizen’s asylum claim where, inter alia, there was “lack of

clear evidence” as to motives for attacks on woman whose husband had been

murdered by rebels 4 years earlier). Further, Mendez experienced no resulting

physical harm from the threats she received, see Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th

Cir. 2000) (unless unfulfilled threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual

suffering or harm, they alone do not constitute past persecution); and a reasonable

fact-finder could conclude that the guerrillas were threatening Mendez because she

refused to join them, rather than on account of any actual or imputed political

opinion, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992) (forced recruitment

by guerrilla organization does not necessarily equate with persecution on account of

political opinion). 

We also conclude that a reasonable fact-finder could have found that Mendez

lacks a well-founded fear of future persecution. The 1984 and 1989 murders of her

family members, and the 1994 threats Mendez received, were not recent events, see

Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft, 337 F.3d 983, 987 (8th Cir. 2003) (alien had to show

why events that happened over 10 years earlier provided objectively reasonable basis

Appellate Case: 03-3706 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2004 Entry ID: 1831340 
-3-

for present fear of particularized persecution); country reports indicate that current

crime and violence stem from common crime, the umbrella guerrilla organization has

dissolved itself, and the State Department has seen no claims by Indians (like

Mendez) of political persecution, see id. at 986-87 (where State Department reports

on Guatemala did not assert that guerrillas continued to attack former Civil Patrol

members or others who refused to join them, reports did not establish alien’s claim

of well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion); and Mendez’s

mother, other sister, and brother still reside in Guatemala and have not been harmed,

see Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir. 2002) (finding of no well-founded

fear of future persecution was bolstered by fact that family had not been molested by

government). 

Mendez’s request for withholding of removal necessarily fails as well. See

Kratchmarov v. Heston, 172 F.3d 551, 555 (8th Cir. 1999) (withholding-of-removal

standard is more difficult to meet than asylum standard).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3706 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2004 Entry ID: 1831340