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Immigration and Naturalization Service, * [UNPUBLISHED]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 and

1

daughter who are citizens 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-

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) ordered them to show cause why they

should not be deported. Following a hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found

deportability had been established, and after a subsequent hearing, denied Carmen and

Astrid&s applications for asylum and withholding of deportation, and ordered them to

voluntarily depart. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed their appeal

from the IJ&s order, adopting the reasoning of the IJ, and Carmen and Astrid now

petition for review. They maintain the denial was arbitrary, capricious, and

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.

The 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 of

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 secretary for a former

president of El Salvador, now deceased; although she had been required to keep

governmental secrets, she had never spoken out on behalf of a political candidate. In

October 1988, through an anonymous telephone call taken by Astrid, Carmen was

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 Carmen

possessed a “great amount of cash” and had “big businesses here and out of the

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, and the government and police had investigated, the actual perpetrator was

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 here

since then. No further threats were made during the trips to El Salvador, but Astrid

testified that she fears returning there because she is afraid of being killed, it is hard to

find a job there, and she and her American boyfriend are getting engaged. Carmen

contended it was dangerous to return to El Salvador because she had been unable to

determine who made the threats, and she believed armed groups were committing

murders and kidnappings.

We agree with the BIA that Carmen and Astrid did not show any connection

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 seeking

asylum must show persecution or feared persecution is based on one of five grounds

found in § 1101(a)(42)(A)). As to their alleged fear of future persecution, Carmen and

Astrid had to show their fear was "both subjectively genuine and objectively

reasonable.” Id. To overcome the BIA&s finding that Carmen and Astrid lacked a

well-founded fear, they must show their evidence “was so compelling that no

reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Feleke, 118

F.3d at 598.

After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude a reasonable fact finder

could find Carmen and Astrid&s fear of persecution was not objectively reasonable.

Carmen conceded that she did not openly express any political opinion in El Salvador,

the threats made no mention of Carmen&s political affiliation, Carmen and Astrid&s

subsequent travel between the United States and El Salvador is inconsistent with their

claimed fear, and they suffered no further threats during these subsequent stays in El

Salvador. Because substantial 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 of relief. See Miranda v. INS, 51 F.3d 767, 769 (8th Cir. 1995) (per

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.