Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02907/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02907-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Domingo Juarez Pedro
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

Pedro also sought relief under the Convention Against Torture, but he has

specifically waived that claim on appeal. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2907

___________

Domingo Juarez Pedro, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2006

Filed: July 12, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Domingo Juarez Pedro petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s)

denial of Pedro’s application for asylum and withholding of removal.1

 Having

carefully reviewed the record, we deny the petition. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411

F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). 

Appellate Case: 05-2907 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066599
-2-

We conclude that, given Pedro’s asserted bases for asylum and the record

before the IJ and the BIA, Pedro did not establish past persecution based on a

protected ground. See Gomez v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 543, 545 (8th Cir. 2005) (record

must compel finding that protected ground motivated persecutor’s actions). As to a

reasonable fear of future persecution, Pedro’s testimony indicated he primarily feared

returning to Guatemala because he had been gone so long, he did not know anyone

there, and he feared his uncle--if still living in Guatemala--might harm him. Also, the

State Department reports do not support his fear that he may be kidnaped or killed by

guerillas upon his return. See Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft, 337 F.3d 983, 987 (8th Cir.

2003) (dramatic changes in Guatemala after 1996 peace accords prevented dated

events from translating into objectively reasonable fear of future persecution);

Navarijo-Barrios v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 561, 564 (8th Cir. 2003) (BIA may reasonably

rely on State Department’s assessment of current country conditions as they relate to

likelihood of future persecution). The State Department reports do, however, support

the IJ’s determination that Pedro can safely relocate to Guatemala City. See MelecioSaquil, 337 F.3d at 988 (changes in Guatemalan conditions following 1996 peace

accords greatly increased likelihood that asylum applicant could find safe place to live

upon his return). Pedro’s claim for withholding of removal--which carries a more

rigorous burden of proof--necessarily fails as well. See Turay v. Ashcroft, 405 F.3d

663, 667 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Pedro’s remaining arguments provide no basis for granting his petition for

review, and accordingly we deny it. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2907 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066599