Case Name: Mateo Diego FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-19
Citations: 75 F. App'x 688
Docket Number: No. 02-74165; Agency No. A75-250-657
Parties: Mateo Diego FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 688–689

Head Matter:
Mateo Diego FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-74165.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.
Decided Sept. 19, 2003.
Christopher J. Stender, Stender & Associates, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Office, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Phoenix, AZ, Contance Wynn, Joan E. Smiley, Richard M. Evans, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mateo Diego Francisco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision summarily affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000), and deny the petition for review.
Francisco testified that his father refused to allow the Guatemalan military and a guerilla group to forcibly recruit Francisco for military service when he was a boy. The evidence presented does not establish that the recruitment attempts were on account of Francisco's real or imputed political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, the record does not compel the conclusion that Francisco was persecuted or reasonably fears persecution on account of a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490 (9th Cir.1997).
As Francisco has failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he has necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960-61 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.