United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4126

___________

Hugo Acuna-Lapola, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Immigration

* and Naturalization Service.

Immigration and Naturalization *

Service, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

 Submitted: July 7, 1998

 Filed: July 9, 1998

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Hugo Acuna-Lapola, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States on a nonimmigrant visa. In 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) ordered

Acuna-Lapola to show cause why he should not be deported. Following a hearing, the

Immigration Judge (IJ) found deportability had been established, denied Acuna-Lapola’s

application for asylum and withholding of deportation, and ordered him to voluntarily

depart. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal from the IJ’s

order, adopting the reasoning of the IJ, and Acuna-Lapola now petitions for
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

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 L. No. 104-302, 110 Stat. 3656, repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1105a (1994)

and replaced it with a new judicial review provision. See IIRIRA § 306. As the new

provision does not apply to proceedings that commenced before April 1, 1997, this

court continues to have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. See IIRIRA § 309(c).

-2-

review. He maintains that he was subject to past persecution, and has a well-founded

fear of future persecution based on his membership in a particular social group and on

his actual and imputed political opinion. Acuna-Lapola also argues here, as he did

before the BIA, that the IJ incorrectly assessed his credibility and applied an incorrect

burden of proof. Reviewing the BIA&s denial of asylum for an abuse of discretion and

the factual findings underlying its refusal to grant asylum under the substantial-evidence

standard, see Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 597-98 (8th Cir. 1997), we deny AcunaLapola’s petition.1

The Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(a) (1994). A refugee is an alien who is unwilling to return to his 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.”

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (1994).

As we believe the IJ articulated a valid reason for discrediting Acuna-Lapola’s

testimony--inconsistent testimony regarding material facts--we defer to the IJ’s

credibility finding, see Hamzehi v. INS, 64 F.3d 1240, 1242 (8th Cir. 1995); HajianiNiroumand v. INS, 26 F.3d 832, 838 (8th Cir. 1994), and we conclude Acuna-Lapola

did not present specific facts establishing he had been the victim of persecution. After

carefully reviewing the evidence, we further conclude that a reasonable fact finder could

find Acuna-Lapola’s fear of persecution was not objectively reasonable. See

Ghasemimehr v. INS, 7 F.3d 1389, 1390-91 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (applicant

must show alleged fear of future persecution was both “subjectively genuine and
-3-

objectively reasonable”); Feleke, 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”). Because

substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum, we also affirm the BIA’s denial of

withholding of deportation. See Behzadpour v. United States, 946 F.2d 1351, 1354 (8th

Cir. 1991). After reviewing Acuna-Lapola’s remaining arguments, we conclude they

are without merit.

Accordingly, we deny Acuna-Lapola’s petition.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.