UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KELEMUA ROBBI, a/k/a Kelemwa

Gelda Robi,

Petitioner,

v. No. 97-2454

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A72-418-295)

Submitted: July 20, 1998

Decided: August 13, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ivan Yacub, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger,

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Charles E. Pazar, Senior

Litigation Counsel, Linda S. Wernery, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Kelemua Robbi petitions for review of a final order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her application for asylum

and withholding of deportation. Because substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, we deny the petition.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) authorizes the Attorney

General, in her 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 her 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) (in 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." 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 (4th Cir. 1992).

The standard for withholding of deportation is more stringent than

that for granting asylum. See 8 U.S.C.A.§ 1253(h) (West Supp. 1998);1

_________________________________________________________________

1 Robbi was in exclusion proceedings before April 1, 1997, the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009.

Therefore, under the transitional rules contained in§ 309(c)(1) of the

IIRIRA, the amendments to the Act do not apply.

 2
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.

We must uphold the Board's determination that Robbi 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). 2 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 [Robbi]

was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the

requisite fear of persecution existed." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 481 (1992).

Robbi, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, entered the United States

as a non-immigrant visitor in December 1990. In her asylum application, Robbi claimed that she fears return to Ethiopia because she

believes she will face "dangers of imprisonment, torture or risks to

[her] life" because of her membership in the Oromo tribe, because her

husband was a member of the Ethiopian Air Force under the

Mengistu regime, and because of her political activities in the United

States.

With respect to Robbi's claim that she feared persecution on

account of her membership in the Oromo tribe, the IJ held that, based

on the State Department profile of Ethiopia, while Oromos are subject

to some discrimination, there was no evidence that Oromos are currently being persecuted solely on the basis of their ethnicity. When

asked whether she personally knew of any Oromos who had suffered

mistreatment or persecution, Robbi answered that her cousin had

recently been tortured and killed by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). In her asylum application, however, Robbi claimed that it was her brother who was killed by the

EPRDF. When the discrepancy was pointed out on cross-examination,

_________________________________________________________________

2 We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105(a)(4) was repealed by the IIRIRA and

replaced with 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4) (West Supp. 1998). Again,

because this case was in transition at the time the IIRIRA was passed,

8 U.S.C. § 1105(a)(4) is still applicable under the terms of the transitional rules contained in § 309(c)(4) of the IIRIRA.

 3
Robbi stated that it was neither her brother nor her cousin, but her

uncle who was killed. The IJ found that Robbi failed to "present sufficient detail with respect to this matter to enable the Court to make any

judgment whatsoever as to what happened to that particular family

member or why it happened."

The IJ further found that Robbi failed to establish a well-founded

fear of persecution based on her deceased husband's military service.

The IJ concluded that it was highly unlikely that Robbi would suffer

any difficulties because her husband had died some fifteen years earlier and because the only evidence of such difficulties involved family

members of high-ranking military generals and colonels who fought

up until the fall of the Mengistu government in May 1991. The IJ further supported his conclusion on the fact that Robbi testified that her

two teenage sons have remained unharmed in Ethiopia.

Finally, the IJ found that Robbi's political activities as a member

of the Coalition of Ethiopian Democratic Forces (COEDF) in the

United States did not give rise to a reasonable fear of persecution

should she be returned to Ethiopia. Robbi did not hold a leadership

position in the organization and the only evidence she presented with

respect to persecution of COEDF members was that the leader of the

organization was in prison. Robbi failed to present any evidence of

persecution of COEDF members. Based on these findings, the Board

affirmed the IJ's decision and dismissed Robbi's appeal.

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding

that Robbi failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. We further conclude that Robbi failed to establish that the current government engaged in a "pattern or practice" of persecuting

members of the Oromo tribe. See 8 C.F.R.§ 208.13(b)(2)(I) (1995).

The only evidence Robbi presented in support of this claim was a

report by Amnesty International which included references to the

alleged mistreatment of suspected members of the Oromo Liberation

Front, an organization which advocates violence against the current

government. Robbi is not a member of this organization. Such reports

by private organizations cannot serve as a basis for overturning the

Board's decision. See M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d at 313 & n.6 ("[a] standard of asylum eligibility based solely on pronouncements of private

 4
organizations or the news media is problematic almost to the point of

being non-justiciable").

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that

Robbi did not meet her statutory burden. As Robbi has not established

entitlement to asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of deportation. See Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 1000. We

accordingly 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

 5