UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ISAAC DEDESHA MAUUSO,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 99-2668

JANET RENO, Attorney General; U.S.

IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(No. A72-418-268)

Submitted: August 29, 2000

Decided: September 15, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Enid Gonzalez Aleman, LAW OFFICES OF ENID GONZALEZ

ALEMAN, Washington, D.C.; Karen T. Grisez, FRIED, FRANK,

HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Joan E.

Smiley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Cindy S. Ferrier, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Isaac Dedesha Mauuso petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his application for

asylum and withholding of deportation. Mauuso contends he qualified

for relief because of past persecution under the system of apartheid

that formerly existed in his native South Africa and due to the murder

of his family by Zulu warriors of the Inkata Freedom Party (IFP). We

review the Board's denial of relief for substantial evidence. See 8

U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994).* Even if Mauuso's experiences

amounted to past persecution, we find any presumption of a wellfounded fear of future persecution to be sufficiently rebutted by evidence of dramatic changes in country conditions. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.13(b)(2) (2000). Because of the changes in South Africa and

the possibility Mauuso could relocate to a new part of the country, we

find he has no objective basis for a well-founded fear of persecution

in South Africa today. See id.; Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211,

235 (BIA 1985).

Mauuso also disagrees with the Board's finding that he was not

entitled to asylum for humanitarian reasons based on past persecution

alone. We find substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion

that Mauuso's situation, either due to his suffering under apartheid or

due to his family's murder, was not so severe that repatriation would

be inhumane. See Baka v. INS, 963 F.2d 1376, 1379 (10th Cir. 1992);

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

_________________________________________________________________

*We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal

Immigration Reform Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)

effective April 1, 1997. Because this case was in transition at the time

the IIRIRA was passed, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) is still applicable here

under the terms of the transitional rules contained in § 309(c) of the

IIRIRA.

 2
affirm the Board's order. 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

 3