UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

HIRUT TADESSE,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 97-1972

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A72-378-146)

Submitted: March 24, 1998

Decided: May 15, 1998

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Janis M. Clay, LAW OFFICES OF JANIS M. CLAY, Minneapolis,

Minnesota; Gregory L. Wilmes, WILMES & ASSOCIATES, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Marshall Tamor

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Hirut Tadesse petitions for review of a final order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her application for asylum and

withholding deportation. Because substantial evidence supports the

BIA's decision, we deny the petition.

I.

To establish eligibility for asylum, an alien must demonstrate that

she is a refugee within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act). The Act defines a refugee as a person unable or unwilling to return to her native country "because of persecution or a wellfounded 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 alien bears the burden

of proving that she is a refugee as defined by the Act. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.13(a) (1997).

"[A] grant of asylum may, in select circumstances and as a matter

of discretion, be founded solely on the basis of past persecution."

Matter of H-, Interim Dec. 3276, 1996 WL 291910 (BIA 1996); see

also Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16, 18 (BIA 1989). A finding

of past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded

fear of similar future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i);

Matter of H-, 1996 WL 291910. This presumption can be rebutted by

a showing that conditions in the country of origin have substantially

changed since the time of the past persecution such that the alien no

longer has a well-founded fear of being persecuted upon return. See

8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i); Matter of H-, 1996 WL 291910; Chen, 20

I. & N. Dec. at 18.

 2
Eligibility for asylum can also be based on past persecution even

though there is no likelihood of present persecution, if the alien can

show that compelling reasons, such as the severity of past persecution, render repatriation inhumane. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(ii);

Baka v. INS, 963 F.2d 1376, 1379 (10th Cir. 1992); Matter of H-,

1996 WL 291910; Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. at 19. If an alien establishes

past persecution but the record shows that conditions have so changed

that there is little likelihood of future persecution, asylum, nevertheless, may be granted at the BIA's discretion if warranted by humanitarian considerations. See Matter of B-, Interim Decision 3251, 1995

WL 326740 (BIA 1995).

We must uphold the BIA's determination that Tadesse is not eligible for asylum if that determination is supported by substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). The

decision may only be reversed if the evidence was such "that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of

persecution existed." Id.

II.

The evidence established that Tadesse, an Ethiopian native of

Amhara ethnicity, and her family are members of the Pentecostal

Evangelical Church in Ethiopia. The Marxist-Leninist Mengistu dictatorship, which was in power in Ethiopia until 1991, forbade church

worship and wanted Tadesse and her family to abandon their religion.

Tadesse and her family members were repeatedly arrested and beaten

in attempts to force them to give up their faith.

In 1991 a new democratic government came to power; the new

government was composed primarily of Ethiopians of Tigrean ethnicity. The Tigrean government ratified a new constitution in 1994,

which guarantees freedom of worship, expression, association, peaceable assembly, and the right to engage in political activity. The State

Department profile on Ethiopia under the new government relates that

the human rights abuses prevalent under the Mengistu dictatorship

have ended. The report also states that there is no evidence that the

Tigrean government is targeting Amharas for mistreatment; in fact,

many high-ranking government officials are Amharas. Overall, the

report shows that the changes brought about by the Tigrean govern-

 3
ment are broad, and that those persecuted under the Mengistu regime

are no longer in danger of persecution.

Tadesse maintains that the BIA erred in finding that although she

suffered past persecution on account of her religion under the

Mengistu regime, conditions in Ethiopia had substantially changed

such that she no longer had a well-founded fear of future religious

persecution. Tadesse also contends that the BIA erred in finding that

the past persecution she suffered did not merit a grant of asylum on

humanitarian grounds. Finally, Tadesse contends that even assuming

conditions in Ethiopia had substantially changed such that she no longer had a well-founded fear of religious persecution, she still has a

well-founded fear of persecution on account of her father's political

opinion which the new government imputes to her, her family membership, and her Amhara ethnicity.

III.

The BIA determined that Tadesse suffered past religious persecution and presumed that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution in Ethiopia. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(i). However, the BIA

determined that this presumption was rebutted by evidence showing

that conditions in Ethiopia relative to freedom of religion had substantially changed such that there was little likelihood that Tadesse would

experience similar religious persecution in the future. See Chen, 20 I.

& N. Dec. at 18. Although Tadesse and her family were persecuted

under Mengistu due to their religion, the evidence discloses that the

new government respects freedom of religion and guarantees it in the

new constitution. Tadesse offered no evidence to show that her family

continues to be persecuted under the Tigrean government due to their

religion. See Matter of H-, 1996 WL 291910; Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec.

at 18. Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding.

IV.

The BIA determined that the past persecution suffered by Tadesse

was not severe enough to warrant a grant of asylum based on humanitarian grounds. Substantial evidence supports that conclusion. See

Matter of B-, 1995 WL 326740; Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. at 19-20.

 4
V.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that

Tadesse did not show a well-founded fear of future persecution based

on family membership, political opinion, or her Amhara ethnicity.

The record reveals that Tadesse's father, not his family members, has

been harassed by the Tigrean government. Any harassment which

Tadesse or other family members experienced during searches of

Tadesse's father's home was due to their presence in the home and

not due to their family membership or any political opinion imputed

to them by virtue of their relationship to their father. See Chen Zhou

Chai v. Carroll, 48 F.3d 1331, 1342-43 (4th Cir. 1995) (noting that

to qualify as refugee on basis of political persecution, applicant must

demonstrate that she is being persecuted for political opinion). On the

contrary, there was no evidence to show that once Tadesse's siblings

moved out of their father's home they were persecuted in any way

due to their family relationship. Likewise, Tadesse offers no evidence

that she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on her Amhara

ethnicity. The record shows that the Tigrean government is not targeting Amharas for mistreatment and that many high-ranking government officials are Amharas.

The standard for withholding deportation is more stringent than

that for granting asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1994); INS v.

Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-32 (1987); Rivera-Cruz v. INS,

948 F.2d 962, 969 (5th Cir. 1991). Because Tadesse has not established entitlement to asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for

withholding deportation.

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