* District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by

designation.

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 00-60898

ALDO PAUL DAVILA; AIDA JESUS DAVILA; DENIS PAUL DAVILA,

also known as Jose Sanchez-Fagardo; GIOVANNA MILUSKA DAVILA;

MONICA VANESSA DAVILA,

Petitioners,

VERSUS

JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition For Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(A70-802-552)

February 25, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, Circuit Judges, and LAKE, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM: **

Appellants seek review of a final order of deportation of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigra tion-2-

Judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum and

withholding of deportation. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.

The five appellants, citizens of Peru, sought refugee status,

asylum, and withholding of deportation because of alleged religious

and political persecution by the Peruvian “Shining Path” guerrilla

organization. Appellants claimed that the Shining Path persecuted

them in Peru because of their Mormon religion and because of

Aldo Paul Davila’s campaign to prevent the formation of a union at

his work site.

Section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),

8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), authorizes the Attorney General, in his

discretion, to grant asylum to an alien who qualifies as a

“refugee” under the Act. A refugee is an alien who is unable or

unwilling to return to his home country “because of persecution or

a well-foun ded 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). To prove a wellfounded fear of persecution an alien must show that a reasonable

person in the same circumstances would fear persecution because of

one of the enumerated grounds in the INA if he were deported to his

home country. J ukic v. INS

, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5 th Cir. 1994). This

requirement has both a subjective and an objective component; the

alien’s subjective fear of future prosecution must be objectively

reasonable. Id

.

The decision of the BIA to deny asylum must be affi rmed if-3-

supported by “substantial evidence.” F onseca-Leite v. INS

, 961

F.2d 60, 62 (5 th Cir. 1992). The decision of the BIA to deny asylum

will only be revers ed when the evidence is so compelling that no

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of

persecution. I NS v. Elias-Zacarias

, 502 U.S. 478, 481 and n.1, 112

S.Ct. 812, 815 and n.1 (1992).

The IJ found that the appellants wer e deportable and denied

their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. The

IJ recognized that the Shining Path w as a brutal terrorist

organization, but concluded that the Shining Path only attacked

Aldo Paul Davila because of his anti-union activities, not because

of appellants’ religion or political opinions. The IJ also found

that the appellants were not at risk of future persecution because

of their religion or political views.

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decisio n that appellants were

deportable and denied their applications for asylum and withholding

of deportation. The BIA agreed with the IJ that appellants had not

established either past persecution based on religious or political

beliefs or a well-founded fear of persecution if they returned to

Peru.

Having carefull y considered the record, we conclude that

appellants have not presented evidence of such a compelling nature

that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find otherwise.

The BIA’s Order of Deportation is AFFIRMED.