UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BOSSON AMON; CELINE KLU AMON,

Petitioners,

v.

No. 96-1382

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A72-371-319, A29-915-745)

Submitted: October 31, 1996

Decided: November 20, 1996

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Lizbeth R. Levinson, June B. Brown, PEPPER, HAMILTON &

SCHEETZ, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Frank W. Hunger,

Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Senior Litigation Counsel, Patricia M. Connally, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Bosson and Celine Klu Amon petition for review of a final order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. This court previously denied Petitioners' motion to supplement the record with a copy

of the April 1996 State Department Country Report for Ivory Coast

but granted Petitioners' motion to submit the case for decision on the

briefs without oral argument. Because substantial evidence supports

the Board's decision, we deny the petition.

I

The Amons, both natives and citizens of the Ivory Coast, entered

the United States separately with tourist visas and remained in the

country after the visas expired. After they were denied asylum, the

Immigration and Naturalization Service commenced deportation proceedings against them. At a hearing before an immigration judge (IJ),

the Amons conceded deportability, seeking either asylum, withholding of deportation, or to leave the United States voluntarily. The hearing focused on Bosson Amon's (Amon) claim for asylum, as he is the

principal applicant for relief.

Following the hearing, the IJ issued a decision denying the request

for asylum and withholding of deportation, and granting the request

for voluntary departure. The Amons timely appealed to the Board.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the Amons had not met

the evidentiary burden necessary to establish entitlement to asylum

and withholding of deportation. The Amons timely petitioned this

court for review of the Board's order.

II

The Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) authorizes the Attorney

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

 2
U.S.C.A. § 1158(a) (West Supp. 1996). 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.

1996); see M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 307 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).

Eligibility for asylum can be based on grounds of past persecution

alone even though there is "no reasonable likelihood of present persecution." Baka v. INS, 963 F.2d 1376, 1379 (10th Cir. 1992) (quoting

Rivera-Cruz v. INS, 948 F.2d 962, 969 (5th Cir. 1991)). To establish

such eligibility, an alien must show past persecution so severe that

repatriation would be inhumane. Id.

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." BerroteranMelendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 1992); see Figeroa

v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir. 1989). The objective element

requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution. HuamanCornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th

Cir. 1992).

We must uphold the Board's determination that the Amons are not

eligible for asylum if the determination is "supported by reasonable,

substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a

whole." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a(a)(4) (West 1970). We accord the Board

all possible deference. Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999. The decision may be "reversed only if the evidence presented by [Amon] was

such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed." See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502

U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

III

Amon disagrees with the Board's conclusion that he did not qualify

for asylum because he did not meet his statutory burden. Citing his

detention, threats received, and subsequent termination from employ-

 3
ment due to his political opinion, he contends that he suffered past

persecution in his home country and so established his eligibility for

asylum.

After a careful review of the administrative record, we find that the

harms suffered by Amon in the Ivory Coast simply do not constitute

persecution. Amon was detained and questioned on only one occasion

because of his activities with the Front Populaire Ivorien (FPI). He

was not physically harmed and was released after a matter of hours.

Upon his release, the police told him to cease political activity or his

family would be threatened. While we do not condone such actions,

that one, brief detention does not qualify as persecution. See Zalega

v. INS, 916 F.2d 1257, 1260 (7th Cir. 1990).

Likewise, Amon's loss of job benefits and ultimate dismissal do

not rise to the level of persecution. Amon presented no evidence of

attempts to find other employment, or whether other employment was

possible. He thus failed to demonstrate a "probability of deliberate

imposition of substantial economic disadvantage," and so does not

establish past persecution on this basis. Kovac v. INS, 407 F.2d 102,

107 (9th Cir. 1969). Even considered together, the job loss and single

detention do not suffice to establish past persecution. Zalega, 916

F.2d at 1260.

Amon next contends that the Board erred in concluding that he had

no well-founded fear of persecution. Although his subjective fear

appears genuine, we cannot conclude that a reasonable person in

Amon's circumstances would fear persecution if he returned to the

Ivory Coast. Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999. Evidence established that under the Ivory Coast's new president, who took office in

1993, the FPI and other opposition groups have been actively and

openly pursuing their goals. Furthermore, Amon himself testified that

he keeps in touch with friends in the Ivory Coast, and that to his

knowledge no FPI members are currently incarcerated. Based upon

the overall country conditions, FPI membership such as Amon's is

not a sufficient basis for reasonable fear of persecution. There is no

evidence in the record suggesting Amon would be killed in the Ivory

Coast because of that membership. We therefore conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that Amon did not meet

his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum.

 4
The standard for withholding of deportation is more stringent than

that for granting asylum. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 431-

32 (1987). To qualify for withholding of deportation, an applicant

must demonstrate a "clear probability of persecution." Id. at 430. As

the Amons have not established entitlement to asylum, they cannot

meet the higher standard for withholding of deportation. We accordingly deny the petition for review.

PETITION DENIED

 5