
    Edgar Orantes CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
    No. 02-3665.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 2, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 16, 2003.
    Curtis F. Pierce, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Blair T. O’Connor, Thomas W. Hussey, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Papú Sandhu, Quynh Vu, William E. Michaels, Terri J. Scadron, Leslie McKay, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Edgar Orantes Castillo petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Orantes Castillo argues that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his asylum claim, and that it abused its discretion and deprived him of due process by summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision without a separate opinion stating its reasons. After careful review of the record, we deny the petition.

We conclude that the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, as Or-antes Castillo did not show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. He presented no evidence that the guerrilla forces sought to recruit him and his family because of their political opinion or any other protected characteristic. A mere attempt to increase the fighting ranks does not warrant asylum, and Or-antes Castillo admitted that was the guerrillas’ motive. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Further, the government presented evidence of changed conditions in Guatemala: the civil war has ended and guerrilla forces have disbanded and are participating in the political process. See Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft, 337 F.3d 983, 987 (8th Cir.2003).

In addition, we find that the BIA’s summary affirmance was not an abuse of discretion, see Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 678, 680 (8th Cir.2003), and we conclude that there was no violation of Or-antes Castillo’s due process rights in this case, see Georgis v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.  