UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SPIRIDON VIKTOROV SAVOV,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 98-1072

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A72-371-206)

Submitted: July 21, 1998

Decided: August 6, 1998

Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Farhat T. Ahmed, FARHAT TASNEEM AHMED, P.C., North Potomac, Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney

General, Karen Fletcher Tortstenson, Karen Ann Hunold, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Spiridon Viktorov Savov petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals [Board] denying his application for

asylum and withholding of deportation, but granting his application

for voluntary departure. Because substantial evidence supports the

Board's decision, we affirm.

Savov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, entered the United States

as a visitor. He overstayed his visa and concedes his deportability.

Following a hearing, the Immigration Judge denied Savov's petitions

for asylum and withholding of deportation but granted his application

for voluntary departure. The Immigration Judge concluded that Savov

lacked a basis for a fear of future persecution because of changed

country conditions and that Savov's alleged past persecution was not

so severe to entitle him to a humanitarian grant of asylum. Savov

appealed, and the Board adopted and affirmed the decision of the

Immigration Judge.

An alien qualifies for asylum if he is unable or unwilling to return

to the country of his nationality "because of persecution or a wellfounded 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). The well-founded

fear standard contains both a subjective and an objective component.

See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-32 (1987). The subjective element requires a genuine fear on the part of the alien. See

Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir. 1989). The objective component requires credible, specific, direct evidence supporting a reasonable fear that the alien faces persecution. See id.

A finding of past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of

a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)

 2
(1997). This presumption may be rebutted by evidence demonstrating

that there is no longer a reasonable fear of future persecution, such as

when conditions in an alien's native country have changed significantly. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i) (1997).

Eligibility for asylum can also be based on the ground 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. See id.; see also

Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16 (BIA 1989).

Savov disagrees with the Board's affirmation of the Immigration

Judge's determination that even if he suffered past persecution, it was

not severe enough to warrant a humanitarian grant of asylum and that

he was not entitled to asylum because he did not have a well-founded

fear of future persecution due to changed country conditions. Our

review reveals, however, that substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge's determination that Savov did not satisfy his statutory

burden. We agree that while unfortunate, Savov's mistreatment due

to his anti-Communist beliefs--his rejections from medical school,

his draft into and experiences in the military, his detention and interrogation about his father and his activities by the military--does not

merit a humanitarian grant of asylum based on past persecution alone.

In addition, we find that Savov could not show a well-founded fear

of future persecution because of changes in country conditions. The

State Department report revealed that various changes in Bulgaria

since Savov was present in Bulgaria indicate that past mistreatment

in the Communist years of Bulgaria will not lead to mistreatment in

the future. The Immigration Judge also noted that Savov's own witness offered only unsupported lay opinions and did not establish that

he had reason to fear persecution in Bulgaria.

Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the

Board's decision denying asylum. Because Savov fails to meet the

burden of proof for asylum, it is not necessary for us to decide

whether he meets the higher standard for withholding of deportation

under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253(h) (West Supp. 1997). See Cardoza-

 3
Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 430-32; Rivera-Cruz v. INS, 948 F.2d 962, 969

(5th Cir. 1991).

We affirm the Board's ruling denying Savov asylum and withholding of deportation but granting voluntary departure. 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.

AFFIRMED

 4