UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARIO JOEL TAGRE,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 98-1960

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A73-712-375)

Submitted: December 15, 1998

Decided: January 5, 1999

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, Washington,

D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General,

David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Francesco Isgro, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Mario Tagre petitions for review of a final order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his application for asylum and

withholding of deportation. Because substantial evidence supports the

Board'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) (en banc).

The "well-founded fear of persecution" standard contains both a

subjective and an objective component. An applicant may satisfy the

subjective element by presenting "`candid, credible, and sincere testimony' demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution." BerroteranMelendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted); see also Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir. 1989). The

objective element requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that

would lead a reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution. See Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979

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

We must uphold the Board's determination that Tagre is not eligible for asylum if the determination is "supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole."

8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994).1 We accord the Board all possible def-

_________________________________________________________________

1 We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal

Immigration Reform Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

 2
erence. See Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999. The decision may be

"reversed only if the evidence presented by [Tagre] 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) (citation omitted).

Tagre, a native of Guatemala, testified that he entered the United

States without inspection on February 6, 1994. The man whom Tagre

considers his father, Mario Campos,2 worked in the military, in the

national police unit, and as a bodyguard for the President of the Guatemalan Congress. In 1987, Campos was allegedly set up to transport

a briefcase containing cocaine in connection with a conspiracy

involving the President of the Congress. Campos discovered the briefcase's contents, refused to participate, confronted the President, and

resigned his position. Following his resignation, Campos was savagely assaulted. Campos' injuries were so severe that he was in the

hospital for the next year. Campos was in a coma for most of that

year, and he suffered amnesia as a result. In 1990, a year after his discharge from the hospital, Campos immigrated to the United States.

Tagre testified that after his father's departure, unknown persons in

civilian clothing would go to Tagre's house looking for his father. In

1992, well-dressed men in two cars abducted Tagre from his house

and detained him for four days. During this time, Tagre was allegedly

beaten and burned with cigarettes. After four days, Tagre told his captors that his father left the country, and they let Tagre go. Tagre

showed scars on his arms and legs to the immigration judge. Tagre

also told the immigration judge that he believed his attackers worked

for the government because they were interested in locating his father.

Tagre stated that he did not report his abduction because of his dis-

_________________________________________________________________

104-128, 110 Stat. 3009 (IIRIRA), effective April 1, 1997. Because this

case was in transition at the time the IIRIRA was passed, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1105a(a)(4) is still applicable under the terms of the transitional rules

contained in § 309(c) of the IIRIRA.

2 Campos has never recognized Tagre as his son although Campos does

acknowledge paternity of Tagre's younger brother. The Board found

credible Tagre's testimony that the community recognized Tagre as

Campos' son.

 3
trust of the government. Tagre claimed that following his abduction

people in cars would go to his aunt's home looking for him, and he

would have to hide.

Tagre conceded his deportability, but asked for asylum on the

grounds that he had been persecuted and had a well-founded fear of

persecution on account of his membership in a particular social group

(i.e., his family) and his political opinion. Tagre's petition for the

granting of asylum and withholding of deportation was denied by the

immigration judge. On review, the Board held that Tagre failed to

establish that his persecution or fear of future persecution was based

on a protected ground.

We find that the record supports the Board's decision. As a threshold matter, the alleged abuse suffered by Tagre was apparently

inflicted by individuals seeking to conceal their drug activities and

was not the result of the type of persecution encompassed by the statute. Moreover, the Board correctly found that substantial evidence

supported the immigration judge's determination that Tagre did not

have a well-founded fear of future persecution because his wife, children, mother, aunt, and other family members continue to live in Guatemala without any problems. Since Tagre failed to meet the standard

for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard

for a withholding of deportation claim. See Huaman-Cornelio, 979

F.2d at 1000.

We accordingly affirm the Board'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