UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2092

ARMANDO ALDUNATE SOTO, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: June 9, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Carol 

Federighi, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Armando Aldunate Soto, a native and citizen of 

Bolivia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, 

withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review. 

 The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer 

asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2006). It 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. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). “Persecution involves the 

infliction or threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s 

person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds. 

. . .” Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

 An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility 

for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 

2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2009), and can establish 

refugee status based on past persecution in his native country 

on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) 

(2009). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can 

2 
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected 

ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 

2004). 

 The well-founded fear standard contains both a 

subjective and an objective component. The objective element 

requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a 

reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution. 

Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 

2006). “The subjective component can be met through the 

presentation of candid, credible, and sincere testimony 

demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It] must 

have some basis in the reality of the circumstances and be 

validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be 

mere irrational apprehension.” Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). 

 A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or 

withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial 

evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of 

fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless 

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the 

contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are 

reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the BIA’s 

interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations.” 

3 
Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This 

court will reverse the Board only if “the evidence . . . 

presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could 

fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 

n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). 

 We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

finding that Soto did not belong to a particular social group 

that would warrant asylum or withholding from removal. See In 

re C-A-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 951, 961 (BIA 2006) (non-criminal drug 

informant working against a drug cartel does not have the 

requisite social visibility to constitute a particular social 

group). Likewise, we find substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s finding that Soto’s family in this instance was not a 

particular social group warranting that he be granted asylum or 

withholding from removal. See Lopez-Soto v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 

228, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence supported the 

Board’s decision that Petitioner did not show he was targeted 

because of family membership). Insofar as Soto argues he was 

targeted by drug traffickers for his political opinion, this 

court does not have jurisdiction to review the claim because he 

did not raise the claim on appeal to the Board. See GandziamiMickhou, 445 F.3d at 359 n.2. We further find substantial 

4 
5 

evidence supports the Board’s finding that Soto was not eligible 

for relief under the CAT. 

 Accordingly, we deny the 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