UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SALIOU DIALLO; AISSATOU T. DIALLO,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 98-2429

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A29-695-403)

Submitted: March 9, 1999

Decided: April 1, 1999

Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Bokwe G. Mofor, IMMIGRATION ASSISTANCE CENTER, INC.,

Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant

Attorney General, David M. McConnell, Assistant Director, Michelle

E. Gorden, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Saliou Diallo and his wife, Aissatou Tafsir Diallo, petition for

review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

denying Saliou Diallo's application for asylum and withholding of

deportation. Because substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, we affirm.

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Guinea, entered the United

States in 1990 and 1991 as non-immigrant visitors. Both overstayed

their visas and in July 1996, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued an order to show cause why they should not be

deported. Saliou Diallo then filed an application for asylum and withholding of deportation. In his application for asylum and accompanying affidavit, Diallo alleged that he and his family suffered

persecution on account of their ethnic background and political opposition to the ruling Guinean government. Diallo described how in

1975 he was arrested, beaten and detained for four days because the

government erroneously suspected him of being affiliated with a

political organization that had revolted against the government. When

a soldier at the military prison recognized the mistake, Diallo stated

that his captors freed him without explanation. Diallo further asserted

that on account of his ethnic background the government revoked his

scholarship when he resisted its efforts to force him to study social

science. The government then forced him to teach against his wishes

but he ultimately quit without incident. Thereafter the government

repeatedly interfered with Diallo's efforts to run a business by extorting money and continually threatening to arrest him without cause.

On one occasion the government imprisoned Diallo for a month, during which he was beaten and tortured. He was released only after paying a substantial bribe. In a separate incident Diallo was again

arrested and forced to pay money to the police to avoid incarceration.

Fearing continued oppression on the basis of his ethnicity, Diallo fled

Guinea in 1990.

 2
Following a hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found that Diallo's

claims of persecution lacked credibility and issued a decision denying

him and his wife asylum and withholding of deportation but granting

voluntary departure. The IJ based her decision on numerous material

inconsistencies among Diallo's asylum application, his direct testimony, and his testimony on cross-examination. Petitioners timely

appealed to the Board. The Board dismissed the appeal, also finding

that the claim lacked credibility due to significant discrepancies in the

record. This appeal followed.

To establish eligibility for a grant of asylum, an alien must demonstrate that he is a "refugee" within the meaning of the Immigration

and Nationality Act (Act). 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. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service, 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. The

subjective element requires that the applicant present "`candid, credible, and sincere testimony' demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution." Berroteran-Melendez 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. See

Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995,

999-1000 (4th Cir. 1992). Eligibility for asylum can also 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 standard for withholding of deportation is more stringent than

that for 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.

The Board has the power to review an IJ's findings de novo, to

make its own findings even as to matters of credibility, and to assess

 3
the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at

998. Findings of fact by the Board are reviewed by this court under

the deferential substantial evidence standard and will not be reversed

unless the record compels contrary findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

Petitioners contend that the Board erred in dismissing their appeal

because they demonstrated both past persecution and a well-founded

fear of persecution due to their ethnic background and political opinion. They maintain that the evidence in its entirety compels a finding

that they qualified for asylum. In agreeing with and adopting the IJ's

decision, the Board noted important discrepancies between Diallo's

written application and his testimony at the hearing. The Board cited

contradictory information from Diallo about the length of his detention following his arrests, his treatment during his detention, and the

circumstances of his release. In addition, Diallo claimed in his asylum

application that he faced persecution on account of his political

beliefs and ethnic background. At his hearing, however, his testimony

suggested that the government mistreated him based on his unwillingness to continue a particular course of study and his operation of a

commercial enterprise with a Belgian national. Although Diallo's ethnic background may have been a factor in the government's interference with his educational plans and business venture, his inconsistent

presentation of the events pertinent to his asylum application supports

the Board's adverse credibility finding.

Because the record contains substantial evidence supporting the

Board's determination that Petitioners failed to meet their statutory

burden of demonstrating eligibility for asylum, we must uphold the

Board's decision. See Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999. 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

 4