For ease of reference, the appellants have been referred to by their first names. 1 United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2214

___________ Carmen Vallejos-Miranda; Astrid * Carolina Schaffer, formerly * known as Astrid Carolina Amaya- * Vallejos, * * Petitioners, * Petition for Review of an * Order of the Immigration v. * and Naturalization Service. * Immigration and Naturalization Service, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: December 3, 1997 Filed: December 16, 1997

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Carmen Vallejos-Miranda and Astrid Carolina Amaya-Vallejos, mother an d 1 daughter who are cit

izens of El Salvador, entered the United States on non-immigrant visas. Astrid entered in November 1989 and Carmen in May 1990. In 1994, the-2-

Immigrationand Naturalization Service (INS) ordered them to show cause why they shouldnot be deported. Following a hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) foun d deportability had been established, and af ter a subsequent hearing, denied Carmen and A s trid & s applications for asylum and withholding of deportation, and ordered them to vol untarily depart. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed their appea l from the IJ & s order, adopting the reasoning of the IJ, and Carmen and Astrid no w petit ionfor review. They maintain the denial was arbitrary, capricious, an d unsupported by sufficient reasons. Reviewing the BIA & s factual findings underlying its refusal to grant asylum under the substantial-evidence standard, see Feleke v. INS , 118 F.3d 594, 597-98 (8th Cir. 1997), we deny Carmen and Astrid & s petition.
Th e Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to a “refugee.” See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(b)(1) (West Supp. 1997). A refugee is an alien who is unwilling to return to his or her home country because of “persecution or a well-founded fear o f persecution on account of

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (West Supp. 1997). Carmen presented evidence that she had been the personal secre tary for a former presiden t of El Salvador, now deceased; although she had been required to kee p governmenta

l secrets, she had never spoken out on behalf of a political candidate. In Oct ober 1988, through an anonymous telephone call taken by Astrid, Carmen wa s directed to a demand note threatening that her daughters would be kidnapped if she did not pay a specific sum of money. The note contained statements that Carme n po ssessed a “great amount of cash” and had “big businesses here and out of th e country.” Carmen later found a picture of a skeleton with the words “danger, death is close” under the front door of her home. Shortly thereafter, Carmen sent her daughters, including Astrid, to the United States. Although the note had been signed by a guerrilla group, an d the government and police had investigated, the actual perpetrator wa s never identified.-3-

Astrid returned to El Salvador in spring of 1989. In July 1989, she and Carmen traveled to the United States to visit Astrid & s sister, returning to El Salvador the next month. In November, Astrid again entered the United States and has remained her e since then. N o further threats were made during the trips to El Salvador, but Astri d testified that she fears returning t here because she is afraid of being killed, it is hard to fi nda job there, and she and her American boyfriend are getting engaged. Carme n contended it was dangerous to return to El Salvador because she had been unable t o dete rmine who made the threats, and she believed armed groups were committin g murders and kidnappings.

We agree w ith the BIA that Carmen and Astrid did not show any connectio n between the threats they experienced and their political opinions. See Ghasemimehr
v. INS , 7 F.3d 1389, 1390 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (noting that alien seekin g asylum must show persecution or feared persecution is based on one of five grounds found in § 1101(a)(42)(A)). As to their alleg ed fear of future persecution, Carmen and Astr id had to show their fear was "both subjectively genuine and objectivel y reasonable.” Id. To overcome the BIA & s finding that Carmen and Astrid lacked a well-fo unded fear, they must show their evidence “was so compelling that n o reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Feleke , 118 F.3d at 598.
Afte r carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude a reasonable fact finde r could fi nd Carmen and Astrid & s fear of persecution was not objectively reasonable

. Carmen conceded that she did not ope nly express any political opinion in El Salvador, the t hreats made no mention of Carmen & s political affiliation, Carmen and Astrid & s subsequent travel between t he United States and El Salvador is inconsistent with their claimedfear, and they suffered no further threats during these subsequent stays in El Salvador. Because su bstantial evidence supports the denial of asylum, we also affirm the BIA & s withholding of deportation. See Behzadpour v. United States , 946 F.2d-4-

1351, 1354 (8th

Cir. 1991) (finding that, when applicant is not eligible for asylum, he or she is necessarily not entitled to have deportation withheld). Finally, we conclude the BIA adequately discussed the evidence and the reasons for the denial o f relief. See Miranda v. INS , 51 F.3d 767, 769 (8th Cir. 1995) (pe r curiam); Ghaly v. INS , 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we deny the appellants & petition. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.