UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ETHEL ETOKE AIYUK,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 97-1919

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A73-723-671)

Submitted: January 30, 1998

Decided: March 6, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

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

Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Mark C. Walters, Assistant

Director, Loreto S. Geisse, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Ethel Etoke Aiyuk petitions for review of a final order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals ("the Board") denying her application for

asylum and withholding of deportation. We affirm. Our review of the

Board's decision is "narrow, not broad." See Huaman-Cornelio v.

Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992). A

decision must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence. We

may reverse the Board only if the evidence is so compelling that no

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).

Aiyuk challenges the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") finding that she

was not credible based upon inconsistencies between her testimony

and the information she supplied in her application for asylum. An

IJ's credibility determination is granted substantial deference and is

reviewed under a substantial evidence standard. See Figeroa v. INS,

886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating that an IJ who rejects a witness' positive testimony based on a lack of credibility should offer

specific reasons for disbelief).

In Aiyuk's case, the IJ offered several concrete examples of inconsistencies between her testimony and her asylum application which

led to his conclusion that her testimony was not credible. Aiyuk contends that the inconsistencies were not material. However, her request

for asylum is primarily based on those items not mentioned in her

application; specifically, her membership in an opposition party and

her alleged arrest and torture. Nor do we find that Aiyuk established

entitlement to asylum based upon her father's membership in an

opposition party and one isolated incident of violence against him.

See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991).

Neither did Aiyuk show that persons similarly situated to her were

being persecuted for their political beliefs. See 8 C.F.R.

 2
§ 208.13(b)(2) (1997). Nor do we find that the Board improperly

relied on the United States Department of State's report concerning

the political situation in Cameroon. See Kazlauskas v. INS, 46 F.3d

902, 906 (9th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm the Board's decision. 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