UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

YAYA BAMBA, a/k/a Bamba Yaya,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 96-1319

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A72-723-476)

Submitted: November 7, 1996

Decided: November 21, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ronald D. Richey, L. JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Wheaton,

Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. McConnell, Assistant Director, Michele Y.F. Sarko,

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

YaYa Bamba 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.

Bamba, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, entered the United

States as a non-immigrant student on an "F1" visa to attend school,

later dropped out of school, and remained in the United States. The

United States Immigration and Naturalization Service issued an Order

to Show Cause charging Bamba with deportability based on his failure to maintain student status. Bamba filed an application for asylum

and withholding of deportation. Following a hearing, the Immigration

Judge (IJ) issued a decision denying the request for asylum and withholding of deportation, but granting voluntary departure. The Board

dismissed Bamba's timely appeal, finding that Bamba had not met the

evidentiary burden necessary to establish entitlement to asylum and

withholding of deportation. Bamba timely petitioned this court for

review of the Board's order.

Factual determinations regarding an alien's statutory eligibility for

asylum are reviewed for substantial evidence. INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). The standard is extremely deferential,

requiring a reviewing court to uphold the Board'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.

To be eligible for a discretionary grant of asylum, an alien must

demonstrate that he has been persecuted, or has a well-founded fear

of persecution, in his native country on account of race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opin-

 2
ion. 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158 (West Supp. 1996);

Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992). The

well-founded fear standard contains both a subjective and objective

component. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987).

The subjective element requires that the alien's fear be genuine.

Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir. 1989). The objective component requires credible, direct, and specific evidence supporting a

reasonable fear that the petitioner faces persecution. Id.; HuamanCornelio, 979 F.2d at 999. Mere assertions of possible fear are insufficient. Rodriguez-Rivera v. United States Dep't of Immigration and

Naturalization, 848 F.2d 998, 1002 (9th Cir. 1988).

Bamba 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 Ivory Coast, and that the Board abused its discretion in requiring corroboration. We find, however, that substantial

evidence supports the Board's affirmance of the IJ's finding that

Bamba failed to meet his statutory burden. Bamba failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution arising from his student

demonstrations, at which he and some 900 others were hit with clubs

by military police, and the single and limited police detention and

subsequent release to which he testified at the hearing. See M.A. v.

INS, 899 F.2d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (quoting INS v.

Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424-25 (1984)). Nor are his assertions of fear

of persecution arising from his involvement in a political party

opposed to the present regime, without more, sufficient to sustain his

burden. Rodriguez-Rivera, 848 F.2d at 1002.

Moreover, given the inconsistencies between Bamba's application

for asylum and withholding of deportation and his hearing testimony,

as well as the internal inconsistencies and vagueness in his testimony,

we find that the Board properly denied asylum absent corroboration

of Bamba's assertions of past persecution and involvement in a political party opposed to the present regime. See Tarvand v. INS, 937 F.2d

973, 975 (4th Cir. 1991); Hamzehi v. INS, 64 F.3d 1240, 1244 (8th

Cir. 1995).

Because Bamba failed to meet the less stringent burden of proof

required for asylum, this court need not decide whether he is eligible

 3
for withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C.A.§ 1253(h) (West

Supp. 1996). Rivera-Cruz v. INS, 948 F.2d 962, 969 (5th Cir. 1991).

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.

AFFIRMED

 4