UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WOYENESHET MAMO,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 98-2224

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A-71-798-661)

Submitted: December 30, 1998

Decided: March 10, 1999

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, UBOM, WHITE & ROBERTS, Washington,

D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General,

Karen Fletcher Torstenson, Assistant Director, Joan E. Smiley, Senior

Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Woyeneshet Mamo seeks review of the decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying relief on her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. The Immigration Judge (IJ)

found Mamo incredible and denied her application. The BIA affirmed

the IJ's decision, upholding the IJ's credibility determination.

Because substantial evidence supports the BIA's decision, we deny

the petition.

Mamo, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, entered the United States

as a nonimmigrant visitor in 1991 and overstayed her six-month visa.

At the asylum hearing before the IJ, Mamo testified that she feared

persecution in Ethiopia on account of her past membership in the

Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Party (EPRP), a Marxist-Leninist

organization. Mamo testified that she joined the EPRP in 1980, is still

a member, and that she used to distribute information about the party

to close friends. When asked what the EPRP's goals were, Mamo

replied that it opposed the Communist government, brought freedom,

and educated the public. Mamo stated that she joined the EPRP

because it "helps the people."

Mamo described two incidents in which she was arrested allegedly

because of her EPRP membership. Mamo claimed that in 1986, she

was caught distributing information about the EPRP, and she and four

other people were taken to jail, beaten and interrogated. After one

week, Mamo and the other four detainees noticed the jail guard sleeping and escaped. Mamo testified she had no further problems until

1991, when she was arrested and detained for one week following a

demonstration against the transitional government. She could provide

few details about her detention, other than that she was detained for

one week and that "it was a very tragic time."

 2
Mamo also recounted that one of her brothers worked for the

American Embassy in Ethiopia and was accused of spying and jailed

for a year in 1989. Another brother allegedly was arrested in Ethiopia

and has been granted asylum in the United States. Mamo's father,

now deceased, worked for the U.S. Embassy for forty years. Mamo's

mother and two brothers still live in Ethiopia. Mamo obtained an exit

visa in late 1990, six months before the alleged second arrest.

Although Mamo testified to EPRP membership and mistreatment

due to that membership at the hearing, her original asylum application

failed to claim she was an EPRP member or describe any instances

of mistreatment by government authorities due to that affiliation. On

her asylum application, Mamo stated that neither she nor any member

of her family belonged to any organization and attempted to ground

her claim of fear of persecution solely on her brother's employment

with and her family's association with the United States government.

She failed to indicate that any member of her family had been mistreated or to provide details of any alleged detention and interrogation. Mamo also failed to report her alleged imprisonments,

mistreatment, or EPRP membership in her asylum interview in January 1996, only months prior to the hearing.

The IJ found Mamo deportable, concluded she was not credible,

and denied her application for asylum. The IJ's adverse credibility

determination was based on the inconsistencies between Mamo's asylum application and her testimony at the hearing. Mamo first reported

her EPRP membership at the hearing, after failing to note this critical

information in either her asylum application or her January 1996

interview. Mamo's asylum application described only her brother's

involvement with the United States government, and there was no

corroborating evidence or background information to support Mamo's

new and different claims of persecution due to EPRP membership.

Further, for someone who claimed to be an active member, Mamo

knew little about the EPRP, and the IJ found it incredible that Mamo

could have been active in the organization and not had any problems

between 1986 and 1991. Mamo also failed to claim on her asylum

application that she had been mistreated or to provide details of

alleged detentions. Based on the inconsistencies, the lack of specificity, and Mamo's significant embellishment of her claims at the hearing, the IJ concluded that Mamo had not established by credible

 3
evidence that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia

or that she was persecuted in the past. The IJ accordingly denied

Mamo's application for asylum, and withholding of deportation.

On appeal to the BIA, the BIA upheld the IJ's adverse credibility

determination. The BIA noted that Mamo's original application and

her testimony were inconsistent; she omitted critical information

regarding her political activities on the asylum application; she knew

little about the EPRP; and she lacked any other evidence to support

her claim of EPRP membership or political activities, all of which

rendered her claim suspect. The BIA agreed that Mamo failed to present credible evidence sufficient to establish eligibility for asylum,

and affirmed the IJ's decision.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) authorizes the Attorney

General, in her discretion, to confer asylum on any refugee. See 8

U.S.C.A. § 1158(b) (West Supp. 1998). The Act 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.A. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (West Supp. 1998);

see M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 307 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc). The

"well-founded fear of persecution" standard contains both a subjective

and an objective component. An applicant may satisfy the subjective

element by presenting "`candid, credible, and sincere testimony' demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution." Berroteran-Melendez v.

INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting BlancoComarribas v. INS, 830 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1987)).

In this case, the IJ and the BIA found Mamo's testimony regarding

her fear of persecution was not credible and denied asylum on that

basis. We review the credibility findings of the IJ and the BIA for

substantial evidence. See Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.

1989); Turcios v. INS, 821 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See Turcios, 821 F.2d at 1398. A

reviewing court gives credibility determinations substantial deference

provided they are supported by "specific, cogent reason[s]" for the

disbelief. Figeroa, 886 F.2d at 78 (quoting Turcios, 821 F.2d at

1399).

 4
We find that the BIA noted sufficient specific and cogent reasons

to uphold the credibility finding of the IJ: Mamo's testimony was

inconsistent from her asylum application; she omitted information

about her alleged EPRP membership and political activities, central

to her asylum claim, from the asylum application; she understood little about the EPRP; and she had no documentary or other evidence

regarding her EPRP membership or political activities. The determination is entitled to substantial deference. As a result, we find that the

BIA's conclusion that Mamo failed to present reliable evidence sufficient to establish eligibility for asylum is supported by substantial evidence.

The standard for withholding of deportation is more stringent than

that for granting asylum. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,

430-32 (1987). Because Mamo failed to show entitlement to asylum,

she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding deportation.

Finding no error to the BIA's decision, we deny Mamo's 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

_________________________________________________________________

*Mamo asserts for the first time on appeal to this court that she was

denied her due process right to a fair hearing before the IJ, because the

IJ "made up her mind" before Mamo testified. Even assuming that this

claim has not been waived by Mamo's failure to raise it before the BIA,

see Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700-01 (4th Cir. 1990), Mamo's

claim is demonstrably without merit. The record shows that the IJ fully

considered Mamo's hearing testimony.

 5