UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MEMAH KAMARA,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 97-1328

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A73-121-476)

Submitted: August 19, 1997

Decided: September 30, 1997

Before HALL, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Carrie Crawford, Laurel, Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger,

Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth A. Welsh, Senior Litigation

Counsel, Linda S. Wernery, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Memah Kamara petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals ("the Board") denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation but granting voluntary departure

or, in the alternative, ordering deportation to the United Kingdom.

Because substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, we

affirm.

Kamara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, entered the United

States as a visitor in 1990. She overstayed her visa and has conceded

her deportability. Following a hearing, an Immigration Judge denied

Kamara's petitions for asylum and withholding of deportation but

granted her application for voluntary departure or, in the alternative,

ordered deportation to the United Kingdom. The Board reviewed the

claims and dismissed her appeal. Kamara timely petitions this court

for review of the Board's order.

In her petition, Kamara does not allege that she suffered past persecution. Instead, Kamara claims that she has a genuine, well-founded

fear that if she returns to Sierra Leone her life will be in danger

because of her nationality. She states that her fear is based on the

attacks by outside forces who are terrorizing the people of Sierra

Leone. Kamara states further that persecution is feared all over Sierra

Leone, with the exception of Freetown, where Kamara resided prior

to visiting the United States.

An alien qualifies for asylum if she is unable or unwilling to return

to the country of her nationality "because of persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion . . . ." 8

U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (West Supp. 1997). The well-founded fear

standard contains both a subjective and an objective component. See

 2
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-32 (1987). The subjective element requires a genuine fear on the part of the alien. See

Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir. 1989). The objective component requires credible, specific, direct evidence supporting a reasonable fear that the alien faces persecution. See id.

We must uphold the Board's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence from the record as a whole. See Huaman-Cornelio v.

Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992).

The reviewing court can reverse the Board only if the evidence "was

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-

84 (1992). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the

Board's finding that Kamara failed to show that she has a wellfounded fear or clear probability of future persecution on account of

her nationality. See Figeroa, 886 F.2d at 79-81. The record does not

establish that Kamara has a reasonable fear that any group would persecute her because of her nationality. The record also fails to show

that the rebels were attacking the people of Sierra Leone based on

their nationality. Instead, the record reflects that the attacks have been

between different ethnic groups within Sierra Leone and have been

motivated by material gain or opposition to the ruling junta. Further,

although several members of Kamara's family have been killed, the

record does not show that the killings were based on their nationality.

Thus, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that the generally harsh conditions alleged by Kamara fail to

establish that she has a reasonable fear of future persecution based

upon her nationality. See M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 315 (4th Cir.

1990) (in banc) (rejecting assertion that fear due to "general violence

or unrest" in country can establish individualized threat of persecution); see also Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 1000 (finding that asylum is not warranted for person who fears general danger which

accompanies political unrest).

Further, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's

finding that even if Kamara had proven that she had a reasonable fear

of persecution based upon her nationality, her asylum claim fails

because Kamara failed to show that the persecution by the rebels is

nationwide. See Etugh v. INS, 921 F.2d 36, 39 (3d Cir. 1990) (concluding that alien did not make out prima facie case of asylum when

 3
he failed to allege that danger of persecution was nationwide). The

record supports the Board's determination that, as of the date of her

deportation hearing, Freetown, where she resided prior to visiting the

United States, was not under attack by the rebels. We find that substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that Kamara could

safely return to Freetown, and thus she does not meet her burden of

proof for asylum. See Etugh, 921 F.2d at 39.

Because Kamara fails to meet the burden of proof for asylum, it is

not necessary for us to decide whether she meets the higher standard

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

Supp. 1997). See Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 430-32; RiveraCruz v. INS, 948 F.2d 962, 969 (5th Cir. 1991).

We affirm the Board's ruling denying Kamara asylum and withholding of deportation but granting voluntary departure or, in the

alternative, ordering deportation to the United Kingdom. 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