UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GILBERTINA TUMAKU,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 97-1380

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A70-504-559)

Submitted: February 27, 1998

Decided: March 24, 1998

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General,

Anthony W. Norwood, Acting Senior Litigation Counsel, Gretchen

M. Wolfinger, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Gilbertina Dowu Tumaku is a native and citizen of Sierra Leone,

living in this country. She petitions for review of a final order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Because substantial evidence

supports the BIA's decision, we affirm.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) authorizes the Attorney

General, in her discretion, to confer asylum on any refugee. See 8

U.S.C. § 1158(a) (1994). The Act defines a refugee as a person

unwilling or unable to return to his native country"because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (1994); see also M.A. v. INS, 899

F.2d 304, 307 (4th Cir. 1990) (in banc). The "well-founded fear of

persecution" standard contains both a subjective and an objective

component. The objective component requires credible, specific,

direct evidence supporting a reasonable fear that the alien faces persecution. See Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979

F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992).

The standard for withholding of deportation is more stringent than

that for granting asylum. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,

431-32 (1987). To qualify for withholding of deportation, an applicant must demonstrate a "clear probability of persecution." Id. at 430.

A court reviews the BIA's decision for substantial evidence. See

Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999. Accordingly, the decision may be

"reversed only if the evidence presented by [the petitioner] was such

that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite

fear of persecution existed." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481

(1992).

 2
In her request for asylum and withholding of deportation, Tumaku

asserted she had a well-founded fear of persecution in Sierra Leone

based upon her involvement with the All People's Congress Political

Party (APC) and her faith as a Christian Evangelist.

Addressing her political claim, we note that the APC is the former

ruling party of Sierra Leone, which was ousted from power in a military coup in 1992 by the National Provisional Ruling Council

(NPRC). Tumaku's testimony reveals that one of her sisters served as

the propaganda secretary for the APC and was the personal secretary

for the former Inspector General of Police. Tumaku explained that she

lived with and was raised by this sister from nine years of age, and

that she often attended APC functions where she assisted in preparing

refreshments. She believes that were she to return, she would be persecuted both because of her own support of the APC and because of

her sister's prior position within the party. (Her sister successfully

applied for asylum in this country after the NPRC coup.)

Tumaku also testified that she was discriminated against on the

basis of her religion in that she and other Evangelicals were denied

promotions and scholarships in favor of less qualified Muslims. She

also noted that Evangelical groups were frequently denied permits to

conduct "open air services," while Muslim groups never faced any

difficulty in obtaining such permits.

The IJ and the BIA found Tumaku's testimony insufficient to satisfy the objective component contained within the well-founded fear

of persecution requirement. In reaching this determination, the IJ

noted that the most recent Department of State reports on Sierra

Leone stated that there was no information to suggest that mere supporters of the APC, or those with family relationships to former APC

members being held by the present government, were being subjected

to extra-legal actions. These same country reports also stated that

there was no information suggesting that Christians were being

harassed or otherwise mistreated. The reports aside, however, the IJ

noted that the discriminatory acts complained of did not rise to a level

of persecution which would require a grant of asylum. Further, it is

uncontested that Tumaku has other family members who still live in

Sierra Leone, apparently free of persecution.

 3
On the basis of this information relied upon by the IJ and the BIA,

we cannot say that a reasonable fact finder would be compelled to

conclude that Tumaku possessed a well-founded fear of persecution.

Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the IJ's

and BIA's determination that Tumaku did not qualify for asylum.

From this determination, it necessarily follows that she cannot meet

the higher standard imposed for those seeking withholding of deportation. See Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 1000. Accordingly, we

affirm the BIA's order. 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.

AFFIRMED

 4