1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 95-60142

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

ANGEL EFRAIN CAMPOS LAIVA,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(A73-221-511)

______________________________________________________ (October 23, 1995)

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

P etitioner challenges a BIA order denying asylum an d

withholding deportation. We affirm.

I.

Angel Efrain Campos Laiva is a nineteen-year-ol d male from

Puerto Triumfo, El Salvador who entered the United States without

inspection on August 29, 1994. The Immigration and Naturalization

Service (INS) issued an order to show cause why Campos Laiva should

not be deported. After a deportation hearing, the immigration2

judge (IJ) found Campos Laiva deportable and asked him if he wanted

to apply for asylum. Campos Laiva indicated that he wished to do

so, and the IJ scheduled a hearing.

After a hearing on the asylum application, the IJ determined

that Campos Laiva had failed to prove either past persecution or a

well-founded fear of future persecution. He was, therefore,

ineligible for asylum or withholding of deportation. Campos Laiva

appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). T he BIA

reviewed the record de novo and adopted the IJ's legal analysis and

conclusions. Campos Laiva timely filed a petition for review of

the BIA's order.

The only issue before us is whether the BIA's determination

that the petitioner is ineligible for asylum or withholding of

deportation is supported by substantial evi dence in the record.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1970); Faddoul v. INS

, 37 F.3d 185, 188

(5th Cir. 1994). When the BIA adopts the IJ's conclusions and

analysis, we review the IJ's decision as well. S ee Chun v. INS

, 40

F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). This court will not reverse the

factual determinations unless the evidence is so compelling that no

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of

persecution. INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).

With respect to his asylum claim, Campos Laiva asserted that

he feared he would be subjected to persecution for his political

beliefs and practices if he were returned to his native El

Salvador.

Campos Laiva testified that he had been threatened because of2 The FMLN is a left-wing group formerly engaged in armed

guerilla warfare against the El Salvadoran government and the

right-wing ARENA party that controlled it. The FMLN was

legalized by the 1992 peace accord which ended El Salvador's long

civil war.

3 his political affiliation. During the month leading up to the

Puerto Triumfo mayoral elections, he distributed campaign

propaga nda for the ARENA party's candidate, who was seeking

reelection. Campos Laiva testified that during that period members

of the FMLN party 2 threatened and insulted him. He also received

an anonymous note stating that he should withdraw from the ARENA

party or face the consequences. He attributed that message to the

FMLN.

Moreover, Campos Laiva believes that this note led to his

uncle's shooting. Around the time of the election, his uncle, also

a member of the Arena party, was badly wounded. J ust before he was

shot, Campos Laiva's uncl e had a conversation with FMLN party

coordinator. C ampos Laiva believes, but cannot be sure, that this

discussion concerned the threatening note. At the hearing,

however, Campos Laiva admitted that he had not heard the

conversation and did not actually know who shot his uncle. He also

conceded that he knew of no other ARENA party members in Puerto

Triumfo who were targeted by the FMLN during this election.

Campos Laiva remained in Puerto Triumfo for approximately two

months after his uncle was shot. H e then spent three months in San

Salvador before coming to the United States. He received no

further threats and had no other problems with the FMLN during this

five month period. Moreover, the ARENA party of which he is a4

member continues to control El Salvador.

A review of the record indicates that substantial evidence

supports the BIA's determin ation that Campos Laiva established

neith er past persecution nor a well-founded fear of future

persecution. S ee Rojas v. INS

, 937 F.2d 186, 189-90 (5th Cir.

1991). Therefore, we decline to disturb the BIA's determination

that Campos Laiva was not eligible for political asylum.

II.

As Campos Laiva cannot make the "well-founded fear of

persecut ion" showing required for asylum, there is no need to

address his claim that deportation should be withheld. The latter

standard is higher and requires a deportee to demonstrate a "clear

probability of persecution." Jukic v. INS , 40 F.3d 747, 750 (5th

Cir. 1994). We decline to disturb the BIA's determination that

Campos Laiva was not eligible for withholding of deportation.

AFFIRMED.