Case Name: Edi Francisco GONZALEZ Gonzalez, aka Edin Francisco Gonzalez Gonzalez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-23
Citations: 573 F. App'x 41
Docket Number: No. 13-1125
Parties: Edi Francisco GONZALEZ Gonzalez, aka Edin Francisco Gonzalez Gonzalez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DENNY CHIN and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 41–42

Head Matter:
Edi Francisco GONZALEZ Gonzalez, aka Edin Francisco Gonzalez Gonzalez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-1125.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 23, 2014.
Robert C. Ross, West Haven, CT, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Ann Carroll Varnon, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DENNY CHIN and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Edi Francisco Gonzalez Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a February 25, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming the June 15, 2011, decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Edi Francisco Gonzalez Gonzalez, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 25, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Hartford, CT June 15, 2011). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ's decision as the final agency determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). Because Gonzalez does not challenge the denial of CAT relief or the agency's findings regarding his fear of gang violence, we address only asylum and withholding of removal based on his claim of attempted recruitment by the Guatemalan military.
Gonzalez argues that recruiters' attempts to draft him into the Guatemalan army as a child, into a civil war that he politically opposed, constituted past persecution. Although compulsory military service does not generally constitute persecution, we have not addressed whether conscription in violation of national or international laws (as may be the case with child soldiers) is an exception to that rule. See Islami v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 391, 396 (2d Cir.2005). We have carved out one exception to the rule that may also apply here, for conscientious objectors to conscription into an army that commits human rights abuses. See id.
Nevertheless, we do not reach those issues because, even assuming past persecution, the agency reasonably found any well-founded fear of future persecution rebutted by a fundamental change in circumstances: the end of the Guatemalan civil war almost 20 years ago. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (providing that past persecution forms rebuttable presumption of future persecution). That finding was supported by Gonzalez's own confirmation that the war had ended twenty years prior to his merits hearing and the lack of any mention of an ongoing war in the 2009 State Department Country Report. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (providing that an IJ's factual findings will be upheld unless a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary). Due to Gonzalez's failure to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, the agency did not err in denying asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B), 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(i)(A), 1208.16(b)(l)(i)(A).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).