UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT RICARDO EZIDORO ISIDRO IGLESIAS, Petitioner,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_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELJohn 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 pr ecedent 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 In 1993, after the El Salvadoran government ended its twelve-yearwar with the guerrillas and the guerrillas were no longer active, former guerrillas came to Iglesias' house looking for him.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
21993 from guerrillas and then from recidivist guerrillas, Iglesias offered no evidence that such threats would continue were he toreturn 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). B ecause Iglesias has not established entitlement toasylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding deportation. Our review of the record discloses that the BIA's decision is basedupon 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