1

Alberto Gonzales, who has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the

United States, and Michael Chertoff, who has been appointed to serve as Secretary

of the Department of Homeland Security, are substituted as respondents pursuant to

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2465

___________

Miguel Zacarias Lorenzo-Gonzales, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review

v. * of an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, United States *

Attorney General; Michael Chertoff, *

Secretary of Department of Homeland * [PUBLISHED]

Security, *

*

Respondents.1 *

___________

Submitted: August 3, 2005 

Filed: August 18, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Miguel Zacarias Lorenzo-Gonzales (Lorenzo) petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed without
2

The IJ’s decision, therefore, constitutes the final agency determination for

purposes of judicial review. See Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 678, 679 n.1 (8th

Cir. 2003).

-2-

opinion an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal,

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure.2

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the IJ’s decision after a

July 2000 hearing is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See

Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 919 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review).

The IJ found Lorenzo failed to show past persecution based on his service in the Civil

Patrol--a voluntary, unarmed force set up by the Guatemalan military to watch and

report on guerilla activity--and a September 1994 incident when several unidentified

armed men threatened Lorenzo’s wife and told her, “[I]f you find your husband, hand

him over to us.” See id. at 917-19 (rejecting Guatemalan citizen’s asylum claim

where, inter alia, there was “lack of clear evidence” as to identity of her attackers or

motives for attacks); Fisher v. INS, 291 F.3d 491, 497-98 (8th Cir. 2002) (one

episode of threats and physical roughness was insufficient to show past persecution);

Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats alone do not

constitute past persecution, unless they are so menacing as to cause significant actual

suffering or harm; where petitioner was not closely confronted or otherwise harmed,

he did not suffer past persecution from threats).

The IJ also found Lorenzo failed to show a well-founded fear of future

persecution because 1997-1999 State Department reports indicated that, since

Lorenzo’s 1994 departure from Guatemala, the guerrillas had signed peace accords

with the Guatemalan government and had disbanded and renounced violence. See

Gebrehiwot v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 723, 726 (8th Cir. 2004) (IJ may reasonably rely

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

likelihood of future persecution); Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft, 337 F.3d 983, 986-87
-3-

(8th Cir. 2003) (dramatic changes in Guatemala after 1996 peace accords prevented

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

Regalado-Garcia v. INS, 305 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2002) (objective reasonableness

of petitioner’s fear of future persecution is undermined by changed country

conditions). 

In addition, because Lorenzo failed to meet the burden of proof on his asylum

claim, his application for withholding of removal necessarily fails as well, see Turay

v. Ashcroft, 405 F.3d 663, 667 (8th Cir. 2005) (withholding-of-removal standard is

more rigorous than asylum standard); we see no basis in the record for CAT relief, see

Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 780-82 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing

considerations relevant to relief under CAT); and we lack jurisdiction to review the

denial of voluntary departure, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) (no court shall have

jurisdiction over appeal from denial of voluntary departure).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________