1

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

United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4127

___________

Gloria Esperanza Ruano Salazar, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales,1

 Attorney General * [UNPUBLISHED]

of the United States, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: April 28, 2006

Filed: May 5, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gloria Esperanza Ruano Salazar, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order, which affirmed an Immigration

Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of Salazar’s application for asylum and withholding of removal.

We deny the petition.
-2-

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the BIA’s decision is

supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Menendez-Donis v.

Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915, 917-19 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). Salazar failed

to meet her burden of establishing eligibility for asylum on account of any protected

ground. Even if guerrillas were responsible for her boyfriend’s murder, and even if

the guerrillas killed him because he was a bodyguard for an Army colonel, Salazar

did not testify or present evidence that these guerrillas therefore imputed a particular

political opinion to her and threatened her because of the imputation. Cf. Gomez v.

Gonzales, 425 F.3d 543, 545-46 (8th Cir. 2005) (asylum applicants presented only

conclusory allegation that soldiers’ motivation in beating them was related to imputed

political opinion, where soldiers said nothing about applicants’ political opinions and

no other event supported such an imputation). Further, the threats Salazar testified

she received following her boyfriend’s death were made by unnamed, unknown men,

were relayed to her by third parties, and were unfulfilled. See Menendez-Donis, 360

F.3d at 916, 919 (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);

Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (where petitioner was not closely

confronted or otherwise harmed, he did not suffer past persecution from threats). As

for the murders of her two uncles and cousin after she left Guatemala, Salazar

testified simply that she believed they had been killed because of her “problem,” and

she presented no corroborating evidence that they were indeed killed by guerrillas.

We agree with the IJ that the lack of both specificity and corroboration rendered

Salazar’s testimony less reliable. See Nyonzele v. INS, 83 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir.

1996) (although alien’s testimony need not always be corroborated by documentation,

it must bear some degree of reliability). Because Salazar’s asylum claim fails, her

request 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). 

The petition for review is denied.

____________________________