## 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 Immigration and Naturalization * Service, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent.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 nonimmigran t

visa. In 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) ordere d Acuna-Lapola to show cause why he should not be deported. Following a hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found deportability had been established, denied Acu na-Lapola’s a p plication 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 forThe Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 199 6 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, repe aled 8 U.S.C. § 1105a (1994) and replaced it

with a new judicial review provision. See IIRIRA § 306. As the new prov isiondoes not apply to proceedings that commenced before April 1, 1997, thi s 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 futur

e persecution based on his membership in a particular social group and on his actual a nd imputed political opinion. Acuna-Lapola also argues here, as he di d before the BI A, 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 as ylum under the substantial-evidence sta ndard, see Feleke v. INS , 118 F.3d 594, 597-98 (8th Cir. 1997), we deny Acuna

Lapola’s petition. 1 The Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to a “refug ee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (1994). A refugee is an alien who is unwilling to return to his or her home co untry because of “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account o f race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular so cial 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 testi mony--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 specifi c facts establishing he had been the victim of persecution. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we further conclude that a reasona ble fact finder could find Acuna-Lapola’s fear of persecution was not objectively reasonable. Se e Ghasemime hr

v. INS , 7 F.3d 1389, 1390-91 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (applican t 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 lac kedwell-founded fear, he or she must show evidence “was so compelling that n o reason able fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution”). Becaus e 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 1 351, 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.