Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02311/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02311-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Evelia Herrera Davila
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2311

___________

Evelia Herrera Davila, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Review of an

* Order of the Board of

John Ashcroft, * Immigration Appeals.

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: July 21, 2004

Filed: August 6, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Evelia Herrera Davila (Herrera), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

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

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

removal. 

After careful review of the record, we deny the petition because substantial

evidence on the record as a whole supports the IJ’s conclusions. See

Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 917-19 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of

review). We agree with the BIA that Herrera failed to show past persecution based

Appellate Case: 03-2311 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2004 Entry ID: 1796654 
-2-

on political opinion, see Al Tawm v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 740, 743 (8th Cir. 2004)

(mere presence of some physical harm does not require finding of past persecution),

or a well-founded fear of future persecution, see Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft, 337 F.3d

983, 987 (8th Cir. 2003) (record supported IJ’s finding that asylum applicant who

claimed he had been beaten by guerrillas in mid-1980’s lacked well-founded fear of

future persecution due to “dramatic changes in Guatemala after the 1996 peace

accords”); Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 599 n.1 (8th Cir. 2002) (State

Department reports are persuasive authority for determining whether asylum-seeker

has well-founded fear of future persecution). Because we agree with the IJ’s decision

as to asylum, we also uphold the IJ’s decision as to withholding of removal. See

Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 932-33 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard for withholding of

removal is more onerous than asylum standard).

Finally, Herrera’s challenge to the BIA’s summary-affirmance procedure is

unavailing because she received a full hearing before an IJ, a detailed and reasoned

opinion from the IJ, an opportunity to present arguments to the BIA, and a decision

from a BIA member. See Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 708-09 (8th Cir. 2003),

amended by No. 02-3004, slip op. (8th Cir. Apr. 28, 2004).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2311 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2004 Entry ID: 1796654