UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MAMADOU COULIBALY; SOULEYMANE

KADER COULIBALY; MAKOKO

COULIBALY; VACABA ALASSANE

COULIBALY,

Petitioners,

No. 98-1535

v.

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A29-925-059, A72-415-966,

A72-415-967, A29-415-968)

Submitted: February 9, 1999

Decided: April 8, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioners. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General,

Michelle Gluck, Senior Litigation Counsel, Laura M. Friedman,

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Mamadou Coulibaly petitions for review of a final order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his application for

asylum and withholding of deportation, but granting voluntary departure. Because substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, we

affirm.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) authorizes the Attorney

General, in his discretion, to confer asylum on any refugee. See 8

U.S.C.A. § 1158(a) (West Supp. 1998). 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. 1998);

see M.A. v. INS, 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. An applicant may satisfy the

subjective element by presenting "`candid, credible, and sincere testimony' demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution." BerroteranMelendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted); 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 (4th Cir. 1992).

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)

(1998). This presumption may be rebutted by evidence demonstrating

that this 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)(2) (1998).

 2
Eligibility for asylum can also be based on grounds of past persecution alone even though this 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.; see Matter of Chen,

20 I. & N. Dec. 16 (BIA 1989).

We must uphold the Board's determination that Coulibaly is not

eligible for asylum if the determination is "supported by reasonable,

substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a

whole." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a(a)(4) (West Supp. 1998).1 We accord the

Board all possible deference. See Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999.

The decision may be "reversed only if the evidence presented by

[Coulibaly] was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed." INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

Coulibaly disagrees with the board's finding that he failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in

his home country based on his political activities and opinion. Our

review reveals, however, that substantial evidence supports the

Board's finding that Coulibaly did not satisfy his statutory burden.

Coulibaly is a native and citizen of Cote d'Ivoire. He entered the

United States in March 1991, with permission to remain in the United

States for just over two weeks, as a visitor for business. Coulibaly's

four minor children were subsequently admitted to the United States

in August 1993 as visitors for pleasure and overstayed their visas.

Coulibaly admits the deportability of himself and his children as nonimmigrant overstays.2

_________________________________________________________________

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

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-128, 110 Stat. 3009 (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 under the terms of the transitional rules

contained in § 309(c) of the IIRIRA.

2 The children's asylum claims are derivative of their father's application.

 3
Coulibaly claims that he was the victim of past persecution in Cote

d'Ivoire for his political activities and opinion and now fears return.

He contends that upon return he would be subject to persecution

based on his political opinion and because of his affiliation with the

Ivory Coast Popular Front political party (FPI).

In his application for asylum and withholding of deportation,

Coulibaly claims that he became chief of the youth branch of the FPI

in his home district. The FPI is the main opposition party in Cote

d'Ivoire. He claims that because of his active participation in the FPI

and his opposition to the party in power in Cote d'Ivoire, he was

threatened by soldiers, beaten with clubs, arrested, interrogated, and

tortured. He alleges that his house was searched by soldiers who had

found proof of his FPI membership and activities. He further alleges

that his then fiancee bribed officials at the prison in order to effect his

release. Coulibaly claims that after his release from prison he journeyed to the United States.

In an accompanying affidavit, Coulibaly claims that after his then

fiancee arranged for his escape from prison, he took refuge in the

southern part of his country and over the next few months was able

to bribe an individual in his country to secure a passport. He claims

that after his arrival in the United States, his then fiancee and the

mother of his children was harassed by the police and interrogated.

He further alleges that on one occasion she was arrested by four

policemen, detained for four days, and interrogated concerning his

whereabouts.

The Immigration Judge (IJ) found, and the Board agreed, that

although Coulibaly provided general corroborative evidence, he did

not provide any specific documentary evidence or independent thirdparty testimony verifying his membership in the FPI or his activities

on behalf of the FPI either in Cote d'Ivoire or the United States.

Rather, Coulibaly relied solely upon his testimony to support his

claim. The IJ noted that while Coulibaly spoke of his activities with

the FPI, he did not provide any particularized details regarding the

FPI platform, the FPI party, or the FPI movement itself. For example,

when asked to describe the type of activities in which he was involved

as a member of the FPI, Coulibaly vaguely responded,"Well, our

political movement, the goal of it was to enlighten the people about

 4
our goal . . . of the movement's goal." When further asked to specify

his activities, he replied, "For example, the government that is presently in charge has had power now for 30 years, and so we must ask

ourselves the question, `What has happened in the past, what is happening now, and then what will happen in the future?'" Coulibaly

then recounted how he was selected to be chief of the youth branch

of the FPI for Kumasi District, noting that his role was to recruit

young people to join the FPI.

The Board found that Coulibaly's testimony regarding his political

activities, which are central to his asylum claim, were insufficiently

specific, coherent, and persuasive to alone support a finding of past

persecution. The IJ and the Board also found that Coulibaly did not

provide an explanation as to why he could not have secured independent documentary evidence or third-party testimony of his political

activities. The Board noted that because Coulibaly first submitted his

application over five years ago and has not been held in custody of

the INS, he should have been able to obtain corroborating evidence

of his past and current activities or explain the lack of availability of

such evidence. Thus, the Board affirmed the IJ's holding that Coulibaly did not meet his statutory burden of establishing a valid claim

of past persecution based on his pro-FPI political opinion.

With regard to Coulibaly's claim of a well-founded fear of future

persecution, the Board adopted the reasoning of the IJ in denying his

claim. Citing the State Department's Advisory Report, the IJ found

that although Coulibaly may have subjective fears of being punished

if he were required to return to his native country, the record did not

contain corroborative evidence sufficient to establish an objective

possibility of persecution. The State Department Advisory Report

notes that, although human rights abuses against opposition party

members, including FPI members, continue in Cote d'Ivoire, the

abuses are against individuals who are very prominent in their party.

The IJ further found that while Cote d'Ivoire has historically had

political problems, the human rights violations in that country do

show a country in transition from the single party to a multiparty system, with open opposition and elections that seat members of their

legislation from a variety of parties, including the FPI. Thus, the IJ

concluded, Coulibaly's subjective fears are not supported by the overall objective facts in the record. The IJ found that Coulibaly did not

 5
address adequately the changed circumstances of his country, the recognition of the FPI as an opposition party, and the political activities

of those associated with the FPI, including the seeking and securing

of public office. The IJ concluded that Coulibaly did not establish a

well-founded fear of future persecution approximately six years after

he left his country for his limited political activities.

On appeal, Coulibaly maintains that he met his burden of proof

with respect to past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution. He claims that the Board abused its discretion in denying his

application for asylum and withholding of deportation by unduly relying upon the fact that his fiancee was unavailable to testify on his

behalf and its reliance on the State Department's Country Report for

the Ivory Coast. Coulibaly's contention that the Board abused its discretion is misplaced because the Board found him ineligible for relief

and did not reach the question of whether he merited a grant of asylum in the exercise of discretion. Rather, the Board found that Coulibaly was ineligible for asylum because he failed to demonstrate

persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. We find that substantial evidence supports this determination.

Contrary to Coulibaly's assertions on appeal, the Board did not

give overwhelming weight to the fact that his fiancee and mother of

his children was unavailable to testify, a review of the Board's decision reveals that the Board merely noted that Coulibaly alleged that

she was unavailable to testify due to mental illness and that he verified this fact by providing the IJ a letter from a social worker. The

Board found that Coulibaly did not provide any "specific documentary evidence or independent third-party testimony" verifying his

membership in and activities on behalf of the FPI. Thus, we find that

the Board did not unduly rely upon the fact that Coulibaly's fiancee

was unavailable to testify on his behalf. Coulibaly also contends that

he gave specific, detailed and coherent testimony regarding his past

persecution. He correctly notes that an alien's testimony is sufficient

to establish a claim for asylum so long as it credible, persuasive, and

specific. See Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 439 (BIA 1987).

In Coulibaly's case, however, the Board found that his testimony was

"insufficiently specific, coherent, and persuasive to alone support a

finding of past persecution."

 6
With regard to his claim of a well-founded fear of future persecution, Coulibaly claims that the conditions in his country have not significantly changed to make his fear of returning unreasonable and that

he offered five exhibits which paint a much bleaker picture of the

political and human rights conditions in the Ivory Coast than that contained in the State Department Country Report. Our review of the

Board's decision, however, is limited to a determination of whether

substantial evidence supports the Board's decision. However, such

reports concerning the political situation in a particular country are

regarded as the most appropriate and perhaps the best resource for

information on political situations in foreign nations. See Kazlauskas

v. INS, 46 F.3d 902, 906 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Rojas v. INS, 937

F.2d 186, 190 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991)). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's denial of asylum despite the existence of

contrary evidence in the record.

Because Coulibaly has not established eligibility for asylum, he

cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of deportation. See

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431-32 (1987). We accordingly 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

 7