UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO CHAVEZ MISOLA,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 97-1929

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A72-418-366)

Submitted: March 31, 1998

Decided: September 2, 1998

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HALL,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Paul Shearman Allen, PAUL SHEARMAN ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. McConnell, Assistant Director,

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Francisco Chavez Misola, a citizen of the Philippines,

seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision and

order affirming the immigration judge's decision finding Misola

deportable, denying his application for asylum1 and withholding

deportation,2 and granting voluntary departure. Misola claims that he

was persecuted while in the Philippines and that he has a wellfounded fear of persecution if he returns to the Philippines. After

review, we deny the petition.

To be eligible for refugee status and discretionary asylum, Misola

must show a reasonable possibility of persecution, or that a reasonable person in similar circumstances would fear persecution on

account of his political beliefs, membership in a particular social

group, or one of the other enumerated provisions of the statute. 8

U.S.C.A. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158 (West Supp. 1998); HuamanCornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th

Cir. 1992). Factual determinations regarding an alien's statutory eligibility for asylum are reviewed for substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C.A.

§ 1105a(a)(4) (West Supp. 1998); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 481 (1992). The standard is extremely deferential, requiring a

reviewing court to uphold the BIA's denial unless an alien demonstrates that the evidence presented was "so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." Id.

at 483-84; Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999. Fear which may be

well-founded, but which does not arise on account of an applicant's

race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or because

of political opinion, do not qualify an alien as a refugee. See Matter

of Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 439, 447 (BIA 1987).

_________________________________________________________________

1 See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(a) (West Supp. 1998).

2 See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253(h) (West Supp. 1998).

 2
Misola asserts that based on the evidence of record, a reasonable

factfinder would have to conclude that he has a well-founded fear of

persecution in the Philippines, and that the BIA abused its discretion

in reaching the opposite conclusion. We find, however, that substantial evidence supports the BIA's affirmance of the immigration

judge's finding that Misola failed to meet his statutory burden. Misola

testified at the hearing held by the immigration judge that he was

being persecuted by the New People's Army (NPA) throughout the

Philippines. Specifically, he claims that the NPA extorted money

from him and his fellow landowners, and that those who failed to

cooperate, including Misola's cousin, were threatened or killed.3

According to Misola, he received a note with a black ribbon around

it from a small boy. He said the ribbon indicated a death threat. The

note requested that Misola pay fifty thousand pesos and gave instructions for its delivery. After receiving the letter, Misola abandoned his

farm and left town. He testified that he did not want to pay the money

because he did not want to support the communists. He also attested

that he did not contact the police or the military because they could

not handle the NPA in his area because they were overworked. He

testified that he believes that he is on a "black list" and that if the

NPA ever found him, they would kill him.

Misola was vague as to his whereabouts during the eighteen

months after he left his farm and before he came to the United States,

although he did admit that he remained in the Philippines during this

time. He further admitted that during that eighteen-month period, he

received no threats, despite the active presence of the NPA in the various areas in which he lived.

The immigration judge and the BIA found Misola unable to satisfy

the standards for granting asylum or withholding deportation. We

agree with the BIA that while Misola may have had a well-founded

fear of harm from the NPA for refusing to pay them money, there is

no evidence that such harm was politically motivated. In fact, Misola

_________________________________________________________________

3 Misola attested that his cousin, a farm owner like himself, was asked

to contribute a sum of money to the NPA, that he refused to pay the

money, went into hiding, and was found two days later with his head cut

off. Misola testified that this was the usual manner in which the NPA

killed those who failed to comply with their tax demands.

 3
specifically denied that he was involved in any political group; he testified that he was not active in politics, and did not support any political actions or groups. He described himself as a"law-abiding citizen"

who regularly paid his taxes.

There is no evidence that Misola was singled out by the NPA

because of his political views or his membership in a social group.

Misola failed to establish that those attempting extortion were motivated by their victims' real or perceived political opinion. Misola testified that the NPA sought money for war taxes from landowners,

business people and peasants alike. The record evidence, by way of

Misola's testimony as well as the documentary evidence presented,

reveals that the purpose for the extortion was for the NPA to obtain

financing to further its cause. Moreover, while Misola did not support

the goals of the NPA, there is no evidence in the record that his views

were known to the NPA. Likewise, while Misola claims on appeal

that his fear of persecution was based also upon his status as a

wealthy landowner, and that the NPA targeted the wealthy as members of a social group, his own testimony at the hearing before the

immigration judge that the NPA also sought money and support from

the peasants in the Philippines cuts against this claim.

The existence of a generalized political motive of the NPA is insufficient to establish Misola's fear of persecution on account of political

opinion under the applicable statute. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at

482. Nor is there evidence that the NPA actually imputed any political

opinion to Misola and sought to persecute him based on that imputed

opinion,4 other than background evidence constituting pronouncements of private organizations, which we find to be insufficient by

itself to overturn the BIA's judgment. See M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304,

313 (4th Cir. 1990) (in banc).

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the immigration

judge's finding that Misola did not meet his statutory burden. While

the evidence is undisputed that the NPA is operating in parts of the

Philippines and are known to make the type of threats which Misola

has described, no threats were made to him after he left his farm,

despite the fact that he remained in various parts of the Philippines

_________________________________________________________________

4 See, e.g., Sangha v. INS , 103 F.3d 1482, 1489 (9th Cir. 1997).

 4
for eighteen months after he received the note tied with the black ribbon. Misola also admitted that his sisters continue to live in the Philippines without incident. Further, Department of State country reports

in evidence, which reports were considered by the immigration judge,

reveal that the NPA is diminishing in size and resources, and in its

ability to carry out threats. While there are certainly areas in the Philippines where individuals are vulnerable to the NPA, the evidence

supports the conclusion that the Philippine government is able to control the NPA in other areas. Accordingly, the record supports the

immigration judge's finding that Misola did not establish that his fear

of persecution by the NPA is countrywide. See Matter of Acosta, 19

I. & N. Dec. 211, 235 (BIA 1985).

The record does not compel a finding that the immigration judge

erred in concluding that Misola failed to establish a well-founded fear

of persecution on account of political opinion or any of the other

grounds for which asylum may be granted. See Elias-Zacarias, 502

U.S. at 483-84; Huamon-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999. Misola failed to

establish that the NPA will persecute him because of his political

opinion or his membership in a social group, or that he faces any

harm beyond the political unrest in the Philippines itself. See EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. at 483; M.A., 899 F.2d at 314-15. We find that the

BIA acted reasonably in concluding that Misola failed to show that

the NPA's actions were anything other than an attempt to extort

money, and that the NPA's interest in Misola was not motivated

either by his political opinion or his status as a wealthy landowner.

Because Misola failed to meet the less stringent burden of proof

required for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for proving

eligibility for withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253(h)

(West Supp. 1998). See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 431-

32 (1987); Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 1000.

We therefore affirm the decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals and deny the petition for review. 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

 5