UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

NIKOLAY BARANYUK,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 96-1660

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A16-070-662)

Submitted: December 12, 1996

Decided: December 23, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Eugenia Ordynsky, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank W.

Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Ellen Sue Shapiro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Nikolay Baranyuk petitions for review of a final order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his application for asylum

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

Baranyuk, a Ukraine native and Russian citizen, entered the United

States as a crewman with an Immigration and Naturalization Service

(INS) authorization to remain in the United States for a period not to

exceed twenty-nine days. After Baranyuk jumped ship and failed to

depart the United States when and as required, the INS issued an

Order to Show Cause charging Baranyuk with deportability based on

his remaining in the United States in violation of law. Baranyuk filed

an application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Following

a hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) issued a decision denying the

request for asylum and withholding of deportation, but granting voluntary departure. The IJ designated Russia as the country of deportation. The Board dismissed Baranyuk's timely appeal, finding that he

had not met the evidentiary burden necessary to establish entitlement

to asylum and withholding of deportation. Baranyuk timely petitioned

this court for review of the Board's order.

Factual determinations regarding an alien's statutory eligibility for

asylum are reviewed for substantial evidence. INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). The standard is extremely deferential,

requiring a reviewing court to uphold the Board's denial unless an

alien demonstrates that the evidence presented "was so compelling

that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of

persecution." Id. at 483-84.

To be eligible for a discretionary grant of asylum, an alien must

demonstrate that he has been persecuted, or has a well-founded fear

 2
of persecution, in his native country on account of race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158 (West Supp. 1996);

Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992). The

well-founded fear standard contains both a subjective and objective

component. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987).

The subjective element requires that the alien's fear be genuine.

Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir. 1989). The objective component requires credible, direct, and specific evidence supporting a

reasonable fear that the petitioner faces persecution. Id.; HuamanCornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d at 999. Mere assertions of possible fear are

insufficient. Rodriguez-Rivera v. INS, 848 F.2d 998, 1002 (9th Cir.

1988). If an applicant establishes past persecution, he is presumed to

have a well-founded fear of future persecution rebuttable by evidence

establishing a change in country conditions such that any fear of

future persecution is no longer objectively reasonable. 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.13(b)(1)(i).

Baranyuk asserts that based on the evidence of record, the Board

erred in concluding that he has not demonstrated a well-founded fear

of past persecution in Russia, and in finding that the presumption of

a well-founded fear of future persecution in Russia, even if applicable, had been adequately rebutted based on a change in country conditions. We find, however, that substantial evidence supports the

Board's affirmance of the IJ's finding that Baranyuk failed to meet

his statutory burden.

Specifically, Baranyuk failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, based on his

witnessing and reporting of illegal activities by other crew members,

and the physical abuse and verbal threats he experienced as a result

thereof. See M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc)

(quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424-25 (1984)). Moreover, we

find that the Board's determination that a presumption of a wellfounded fear of future persecution in Russia, even if applicable, was

adequately rebutted based on the substantial political, legal, and social

changes in Russia, as demonstrated by evidence submitted by the

INS, and by Baranyuk's testimony as to those changes.

 3
Baranyuk also claims on appeal that the Board erred in denying

him withholding of deportation. However, because Baranyuk failed to

meet the less stringent burden of proof required for asylum, this court

need not decide whether he is eligible for withholding of deportation

under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253(h) (West Supp. 1996). Rivera-Cruz v. INS,

948 F.2d 962, 969 (5th Cir. 1991).

We therefore affirm the decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals and 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.

AFFIRMED

 4