Case Name: Ana Laura RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-27
Citations: 85 F. App'x 551
Docket Number: No. 02-3977
Parties: Ana Laura RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before RILEY, MCMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 551–551

Head Matter:
Ana Laura RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 02-3977.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 7, 2004.
Decided Jan. 27, 2004.
James S. Phillips, Jr., Wichita, KS, for Petitioner.
Richard M. Evans, Emily Anne Radford, Papú Sandhu, Judy Forrest, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Timothy P. Mcllmail, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before RILEY, MCMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ana Laura Rodriguez, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ's) denial of Rodriguez's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. After careful review of the record, we deny the petition because the evidence does not compel reversal. See Navarijo-Barrios v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 561, 562 (8th Cir.2003). Rodriguez failed to produce evidence that the guerrillas who attempted to recruit her did so on account of any particular political opinion that she held, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 678, 680 (8th Cir.2003), and the government presented evidence of changed conditions in Guatemala, including the peace accords ending the civil war and overt political participation by the former guerrillas, see Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft, 337 F.3d 983, 986-87 (8th Cir.2003).
In addition, we conclude that Rodriguez's claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture fail. See Francois v. INS, 283 F.3d 926, 932-33 (8th Cir.2002) (finding that substantial evidence supporting denial of request for asylum also supported denial of withholding of deportation, because standard for withholding is more onerous); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (claimant must establish torture more likely than not if removed to proposed country of removal).
Accordingly, we deny the petition.