UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
GREGORIO JUAREZ; ELVA URANIA
JUAREZ,
Petitioners,
v. No. 97-1508
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A-703-684-585, A-703-684-586)
Submitted: September 30, 1997
Decided: October 28, 1997
Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Jaime W. Aparisi, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Frank W. Hun-
ger, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Jane Gomez, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Gregorio Juarez (Juarez), a citizen of Guatemala, seeks
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision and order
affirming the immigration judge's decision finding Juarez deportable,
denying his application for asylum1 and withholding deportation,2 and
granting his request for voluntary departure. Juarez's wife, Elva Ura-
nia Juarez, is a co-petitioner. She was included on Juarez's applica-
tion for asylum and is subject to the BIA's order of deportation.
Juarez, who entered the United States in March 1993, claims that he
was persecuted while in Guatemala and that he has a well-founded
fear of persecution if he returns to Guatemala. After review, we deny
the petition.
To be eligible for refugee status and discretionary asylum, Juarez
must show a reasonable possibility of persecution, or that a reason-
able person in similar circumstances would fear persecution on
account of his political beliefs or one of the other enumerated provi-
sions of the statute. Juarez testified at the hearing held by the immi-
gration judge that he feared for his life if he returned to Guatemala
because he belonged to a civil defense organization from 1987 to
1989. According to Juarez, he has this belief because guerillas
demanding food and money visited his home several times in the
months preceding his departure from Guatemala in 1993.
Statute provides that administrative findings of fact are conclusive
unless a reasonable adjudicator is compelled to conclude otherwise.3
Therefore, we will uphold the decision of the BIA unless the evidence
compels the conclusion that Juarez has a well-founded fear of
_________________________________________________________________
1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (1994).
2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1994).
3 See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (West 1970 & Supp. 1997).
2
persecution.4 In this case, the evidence simply does not compel the
conclusion that Juarez will be subjected to persecution or other harm
upon his return to Guatemala.
The immigration judge found Juarez's testimony credible but
unable to satisfy the standards for granting asylum or withholding
deportation. While the guerillas visited Juarez's home several times
over a period of several months, they only demanded food and assis-
tance. The guerillas did not single-out Juarez for his prior member-
ship in the civil defense or his political opinions. Besides the incidents
at his house, Juarez presented no evidence that he was ever harassed
or even contacted by the guerillas anywhere else in Guatemala. While
having armed visitors may be terrifying, the record does not compel
a finding that the immigration judge erred in finding that Juarez failed
to establish past persecution, or a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of actual or imputed political opinion or any of the other
grounds for which asylum may be granted: race, religion, nationality,
or membership in a particular social group.5
In conclusion, Juarez failed to establish that the guerillas will per-
secute him because of his former membership in the civil defense, or
that he faces any harm beyond the civil unrest in Guatemala itself.6
While conditions in Guatemala remain imperfect, Juarez's young
children and parents continue to live in Guatemala without incident,
and a State Department report on human rights concludes that simi-
larly situated individuals have little to fear upon returning to Guate-
mala.
Because substantial evidence supports the decision of the BIA, Jua-
rez's petition for review is denied, and the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
_________________________________________________________________
4 I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
5 See M.A. v. I.N.S., 899 F.2d 304, 312-14 (4th Cir. 1990) (in banc).
6 See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483; M.A., 899 F.2d at 314-15.
3