Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03123/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03123-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John D. Ashcroft
Respondent
Mateo Vicente Juan
Petitioner
Juana Nolasco Tomas
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3123

___________

Mateo Vicente Juan; *

Juana Nolasco Tomas, *

*

Petitioners, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John D. Ashcroft, United States *

Attorney General, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: July 22, 2004

Filed: August 23, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mateo Vicente Juan (“Juan”) and his wife, Juana Nolasco Tomas, are natives

and citizens of Guatemala. They entered the United States illegally on or around

December 29, 1997. At the removal proceedings, Petitioners conceded removability,

but proceedings were continued for a hearing on their asylum and withholding

application, filed July 11, 1998. After a hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied

the application, reasoning that the evidence was insufficient to establish their

eligibility for asylum. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision.

Appellate Case: 03-3123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2004 Entry ID: 1802298 
-2-

We review the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal for

substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Nyama

v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 815 (8th Cir. 2004). We will reverse only if the evidence

was “so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear

of persecution.” Nyama, 357 F.3d at 816 (quotations and citation omitted).

On appeal, Petitioners’ primary argument is that they provided sufficient

evidence to establish asylum eligibility. They claim that Juan’s testimony regarding

the threats he and his wife received from the Guatemalan military was sufficient to

establish political persecution. They argue the Guatemalan army interpreted Juan’s

reluctance to join them to mean that he and his wife supported the guerillas, and,

therefore, the military’s threats against them constituted persecution based on imputed

political beliefs. 

After a close review of the record, however, we find that the IJ’s decision

denying relief is supported by substantial evidence. As the IJ noted in his opinion,

punishment for the evasion of national military service is generally not persecution.

See Matter of R-R-, 20 I. & N. Dec. 547, 551 (1992); Matter of Vigil, 19 I. & N. Dec.

572, 578-79 (1988). Moreover, Petitioners’ evidence was not such that it would

compel any reasonable fact finder to conclude that they were persecuted on the basis

of an imputed political opinion. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; MolinaEstrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2002). The military visited

Petitioners only four times over eight years. By Juan’s own testimony, the primary

purpose of these visits was to enlist young men into the military, not to punish

guerilla sympathizers. Also, Juan testified that all young people in his community

were pressured to join the Guatemalan army, further suggesting that the military’s

purpose was recruitment, not persecution. We have reviewed Petitioners’ other

arguments and do not find them persuasive.

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2004 Entry ID: 1802298