## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1314

___________ Calixto Gamaliel Gonzalez, * * Appellant, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Immigration * and Naturalization Service Immigration and Naturalization * Service, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 8, 1998 Filed: October 26, 1998

___________ Befo re McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPAR D ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Cal ixto Gamaliel Gonzalez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection. In 1995, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ordere d Gonzale z to show cause why he should not be deported. Following a hearing, th e Immigration Judge (IJ) found deportability had been established and denied his requests fo r asylum, withholding of deportation, and voluntary departure. The Board o f Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal from the IJ’s order, and GonzalezThe Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 199 6 1 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996), amended by Act of Oct. 11, 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-302, 110 Stat. 3656, repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1105a an d rep laced it with a new judicial review provision. See IIRIRA § 306. As the ne w prov isiondoes not apply to proceedings that commenced before April 1, 1997, thi s court continues to have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. See IIRIRA § 309(c). -2- now petitions for review. For reversal, he maintains that he has a well-founded fear of persecut ion based upon his imputed political opinion. Reviewing the BIA & s denial of asylum for an abuse of discretion and the factual findi ngs underlying its refusal to grant asylum under the substantial-evidence standard, se e Feleke v. INS , 118 F.3d 594, 597- 98 (8th Cir. 1997); Hajiani-Niroumand v. INS , 26 F.3d 832, 838 (8th Cir. 1994), we deny Gonzalez’s petition for review. 1
Th e Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to a “refugee.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A refugee is an alien who is unwilling to return to hi s or her home 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.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude that a reasonable fact finder could find Gonzalez’s fear of persecution was not objectively reasonable. See Feleke v. INS , 118 F.3d at 598 (to overcome BIA & s finding that alien lacked well- founded fear, he or she must show evidence “was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution”); Ghasemimehr v. IN S , 7 F.3d 1389, 1390- 91 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (applicant must s how alleged fear of future persecution was both “subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable”). Because substantia l evidence supports the denial of asylum, we also affirm the BIA’s withholding o f depor tation. See Behzadpour v. United States , 946 F.2d 1351, 1354 (8th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we deny Gonzalez’s petition for review.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.