UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JEAN FRENEL GEORGES; MARGARETTE

GEORGES; ALEXANDRA GEORGES;

FRENEL GEORGES, JR.; FRANCESCA

GEORGES,

Petitioners,

No. 97-1250

v.

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A71-795-474, A72-418-733, A72-418-734, A72-418-735,

A72-418-736)

Submitted: July 8, 1997

Decided: July 31, 1997

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General,

Brenda E. Ellison, Senior Litigation Counsel, John C. Cunningham,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Petitioner Jean Frenel Georges, a citizen of Haiti, seeks review of

a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision and order affirming

the immigration judge's decision finding Georges deportable, denying

his application for asylum1 and withholding deportation,2 and granting

his request for voluntary departure. Georges' wife and three of his

children are co-petitioners. They are dependents on Georges' application for asylum and are subject to the BIA's order of deportation.

Georges, who entered the United States in June 1991 on a six month

tourist visa, claims that he was persecuted while in Haiti and that he

has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns to Haiti. After

review, we deny the petition.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied Georges'

first petition for asylum and commenced deportation procedures once

Georges' tourist visa expired. While conceding deportability, Georges

again sought asylum and withholding deportation, or as a last resort,

to leave the United States voluntarily. To be eligible for refugee status

and discretionary asylum, Georges must show a reasonable possibility

of persecution, or that a reasonable person in similar circumstances

would fear persecution on account of his political beliefs or one of the

other enumerated provisions of the statute. Georges testified at the

hearing held by the immigration judge that he feared for his and his

family members' lives if they returned to Haiti. He testified that

_________________________________________________________________

1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (1994).

2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1994).

 2
before he left Haiti a coworker with ties to the Ton-Ton Macoutes, a

paramilitary group with ties to Haiti's former dictatorial rulers, the

Duvaliers, had threatened his life. According to Georges, he was persecuted because he supported Marc Bazin and his party, the Movement for Installation Of Democracy in Haiti (MIDH), to lead the

country. Georges also claimed that he received threatening phone

calls from the supporters of Haiti's current president, Jean Bertrand

Aristide; however, Georges could not identify the callers nor did he

mention the threatening phone calls in his first asylum petition.

Statute provides that administrative findings of fact are conclusive

unless a reasonable adjudicator is compelled to conclude otherwise.3

Therefore, we will uphold the decision of the BIA unless the evidence

compels the conclusion that the petitioner has a well-founded fear of

persecution because of his political opinion or one of the other enumerated bases in the statute.4 In this case, the evidence simply does

not compel the conclusion that Georges will be subjected to persecution or other harm upon his return to Haiti.

The immigration judge found Georges' testimony credible with

regard to the threats from his coworker, but the immigration judge

found that the coworker was not acting on behalf of Haitian authorities or the Haitian government. Additionally, the dispute with his

coworker was essentially personal, and Georges' fear of harm was

from an ordinary thug and not an organized political group. Besides

the incidents at his job, Georges presented no evidence that he was

ever harassed or even contacted by the Ton-Ton Macoutes at home,

or anywhere else in Haiti. While the threats at his job were terrifying,

the record does not compel a finding that the immigration judge erred

in finding that Georges failed to establish past persecution, or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of actual or imputed political

opinion or any of the other grounds for which asylum may be granted:

race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group.5

Although the immigration judge found Georges' testimony about

_________________________________________________________________

3 See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (West 1970 & Supp. 1997).

4 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

5 See M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 312-14 (4th Cir. 1990) (in banc).

 3
his coworker credible, the immigration judge did not find as credible

Georges' story of threatening phone calls from Aristide supporters.

Georges did not present this claim in his first petition in 1991, when

the alleged events were recent and logically fresh in his memory.

Instead, Georges waited four years to raise the claim and now places

the blame for the delay on his attorney and translator. Even if the

phone calls did occur, the immigration judge did not err in finding

that they do not rise to the level of persecution, 6 or establish a clear

probability of future persecution.7

In conclusion, Georges failed to establish that either the Ton-Ton

Macoutes or the supporters of Aristide will persecute him because of

his political opinions, or that he faces any harm beyond the violence

incidental to the civil unrest in Haiti itself. 8 While the record may

show that conditions in Haiti remain imperfect, Haiti now has a democratic government and Georges presented no evidence that he and

his family would not be safe if they return. As the immigration judge

noted, Marc Bazin continues to live in Haiti without incident, and a

State Department report on human rights concludes that supporters of

Bazin and the MIDH have little to fear upon returning to Haiti.

Because substantial evidence supports the decision of the BIA,

Georges' petition for review is denied, and the decision of the Board

of Immigration Appeals is affirmed. 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

_________________________________________________________________

6 See Borca v. INS, 77 F.3d 210, 215 (7th Cir. 1996).

7 See Cruz-Lopez v. INS, 802 F.2d 1518, 1521 (4th Cir. 1986); DiazEscobar v. INS, 782 F.2d 1488, 1493 (9th Cir. 1986).

8 See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483; M.A., 899 F.2d at 314-15.

 4