UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1357

JOSE MEDARDO SANCHEZ CRUZ; JOSE ISRRAEL SANCHEZ CRUZ, a/k/a 

Jose Israel Sanchez Cruz,

Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: September 27, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linette Tobin, LAW OFFICE OF LINETTE TOBIN, Mt. Rainer, 

Maryland, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney 

General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew A. 

Spurlock, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Medardo Sanchez Cruz and Jose Isrrael Sanchez

Cruz, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review 

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) 

dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s order 

denying their applications for asylum, withholding from removal 

and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We deny 

the petition for review. 

The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer 

asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2006). It defines a 

refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native 

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.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). “Persecution involves the 

infliction or threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s 

person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds. 

. . .” Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 

2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility 

for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 

2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2010), and can establish 

refugee status based on past persecution in his native country 

on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) 
3

(2010). “An applicant who demonstrates that he was the subject 

of past persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of 

persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 

2004).

Without regard to past persecution, an alien can 

establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected 

ground. Ngarurih, 371 F.3d at 187. The well-founded fear 

standard contains both a subjective and an objective component. 

The objective element requires a showing of specific, concrete 

facts that would lead a reasonable person in like circumstances 

to fear persecution. Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 

351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). “The subjective component can be met 

through the presentation of candid, credible, and sincere 

testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . 

[It] must have some basis in the reality of the circumstances 

and be validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it 

cannot be mere irrational apprehension.” Qiao Hua Li, 405 F.3d 

at 176 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or 

withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial 

evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of 

fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless 

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the 
4

contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are 

reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the BIA’s 

interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations.” Li 

Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This 

court will reverse the Board only if “the evidence . . . 

presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could 

fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 

n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that 

an alien is not eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless 

manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.’” 

Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)).

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s and the immigration judge’s finding that the Petitioners 

failed to establish that their fear of persecution was on 

account of a protected ground. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 

482. Even if the Petitioners’ opposition to joining one of the 

gangs in their community can be considered a political opinion, 

substantial evidence supports the finding that they failed to 

show persecution or fear of persecution on account of that 

political opinion. Similarly, the evidence supports the finding 

that neither was targeted or will be targeted on account of 

their membership in a particular social group. 
5

Accordingly, we 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