UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RICARDO EZIDORO ISIDRO IGLESIAS,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 98-1045

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A73-722-369)

Submitted: June 23, 1998

Decided: September 1, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John William O'Leary, JOHN O'LEARY & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney

General, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey J.

Bernstein, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ricardo Ezidoro Iglesias seeks review of the decision of the Board

of Immigration Appeals denying relief on his application for asylum

and withholding of deportation.

Iglesias, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United

States on foot in December 1993, and requested asylum in 1995. The

record evidence established that Iglesias served in the El Salvadoran

military as a soldier for six years, from 1987 to 1993. While a soldier

in the military, Iglesias was approached by guerrillas several times

seeking arms and ammunition. The guerrillas threatened that if he did

not cooperate and give them arms, they would kill him or his family

members.

In 1993, after the El Salvadoran government ended its twelve-year

war with the guerrillas and the guerrillas were no longer active, former guerrillas came to Iglesias' house looking for him. When they did

not find Iglesias at home, the guerrillas killed his seven-year-old

brother. Iglesias then left El Salvador to come to the United States.

While en route to the United States, Iglesias learned that his father

had been killed by the recidivist guerrillas when they came to look for

Iglesias.

The IJ found Iglesias credible, but found him ineligible for asylum.

On appeal the BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, holding that there was

no evidence the threats and murders of Iglesias' family members by

the recidivist guerrillas were motivated by a desire to harm Iglesias

on account of one of the five statutory grounds.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Iglesias

was not eligible for asylum. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,

482-83 (1992). Although Iglesias experienced threats up through

 2
1993 from guerrillas and then from recidivist guerrillas, Iglesias

offered no evidence that such threats would continue were he to

return to El Salvador. On the contrary, the record shows that the former guerrillas are now a major political party in El Salvador and are

no longer active as a guerrilla movement. Iglesias has not shown that

anyone connected with the guerrillas currently maintains any interest

in harming him, which would support his claim of a well-founded fear

of persecution. See Cruz-Diaz v. INS, 86 F.3d 330, 332 (4th Cir.

1996); Chanco v. INS, 82 F.3d 298, 303 (9th Cir. 1996). Further,

although recidivist guerrillas may operate in certain areas of El Salvador, the record shows that Iglesias could relocate to many areas of El

Salvador in which recidivist guerrillas are not active, and where he

could live in peace. See Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 235-

36 (1985).

The standard for withholding deportation is more stringent than

that for granting asylum. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,

430-32 (1987). Because Iglesias has not established entitlement to

asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding deportation.

Our review of the record discloses that the BIA's decision is based

upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Iglesias v. INS, No.

A73-772-369 (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 1997). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

 3