United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2842

___________

Pedro Mateo, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an 

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the *

United States; Tom Ridge, Department * [UNPUBLISHED]

of Homeland Security, *

*

Respondents. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2004

Filed: July 19, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pedro Mateo, a Guatemalan citizen, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his

application for asylum and withholding of removal, and for relief under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). Having carefully reviewed the record, see

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

review), we deny the petition.
1

This provision was previously contained in 8 C.F.R. § 240.16 (2003). 

-2-

We agree with the BIA that Mateo failed to show past persecution based on

political opinion, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992) (record did

not show guerillas sought to recruit asylum applicant based on his political opinion;

it is not sufficient that guerillas were attempting to fill their ranks, and applicant must

provide some evidence of guerillas’ motive), or a well-founded fear of future

persecution, see 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). Because Mateo’s asylum claim

fails, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails as well. See Lopez-Zeron

v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 8 F.3d 636, 638 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). The evidence

was also insufficient to support relief under CAT. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d

975, 992-93 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing relevant considerations for relief under CAT;

country-condition reports showing generally poor human rights record, and use of

lethal force, plus extra-judicial killings by security forces, were alone insufficient to

show it was more likely than not that particular individual would be tortured if he

returned).

We lack jurisdiction to entertain Mateo’s argument concerning “repapering.”

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (g) (no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim

arising from Attorney General’s decision or action to commence proceedings,

adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.16 (2004) (Attorney

General has sole discretion to apply repapering provisions)1

; Rojas-Reyes v. INS, 235

F.3d 115, 125-26 (2d Cir. 2000) (statute vests decision in Attorney General alone

whether to convert pending suspension-of-deportation case into cancellation-ofremoval case).

Accordingly, we deny Mateo’s petition for review. As to Mateo’s request for

reinstatement of voluntary departure, he moved for a stay of removal before his
-3-

voluntary-departure period expired, and we therefore deem this court’s grant of his

motion for a stay to include a stay of the voluntary-departure period as well. See Rife

v. Ashcroft, No. 03-2127, slip op. at 14-15 (8th Cir. July 7, 2004). 

______________________________