Carlos Garcia-Gonzalez v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 09-3744
    ___________
    Carlos Garcia-Gonzalez, Ingrid Garcia- *
    Saquich, and Marvin Garcia-Saquich, *
    *
    Petitioners,              *
    * Petition for Review of an
    v.                               * Order of the Board of
    * Immigration Appeals.
    Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney          *
    General of the United States,          * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Respondent.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 18, 2010
    Filed: October 21, 2010
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Guatemalan citizen Carlos Garcia-Gonzalez1 seeks review of an order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of
    asylum and withholding of removal. This court concludes that the decision was
    supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Khrystotodorov v.
    Mukasey, 
    551 F.3d 775
    , 781 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Zacarias-Velasquez
    1
    Garcia-Gonzalez’s adult children were derivative applicants on his application
    for asylum and withholding of removal.
    v. Mukasey, 
    509 F.3d 429
    , 433-34 (8th Cir. 2007) (persecution must be on account of
    protected ground). This court has previously rejected indistinguishable claims from
    Guatemalan citizens based on similar facts. See Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft, 
    337 F.3d 983
    , 985-87 (8th Cir. 2003) (rejecting attempted military recruitment in Guatemala,
    standing alone, as ground for persecution for political opinion); Dominguez v.
    Ashcroft, 
    336 F.3d 678
    , 680 (8th Cir. 2003) (“An alien must demonstrate that the
    persecution he fears is based on his political opinion.”); Bartolo-Diego v. Gonzales,
    
    490 F.3d 1024
    , 1027 (8th Cir. 2007) (“As a matter of law, guerilla attempts to forcibly
    compel a person to join them, absent additional evidence that the conscription was
    motivated by that person’s political opinion, are insufficient to compel a finding of
    persecution on account of political belief.”).
    Because no error appears, this court denies the petition for review. See 8th Cir.
    R. 47B.
    ___________________________
    -2-