Opinion ID: 164863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: 11 Since the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ's decision, we review the IJ's analysis as if it were the BIA's. Wiransane v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 889, 897 (10th Cir.2004). Petitioners argue, however, supported by the amicus, that the BIA's use of the affirmance-without-opinion procedure violated their constitutional right to due process. We rejected that argument in Yuk v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1222, 1232 (10th Cir.2004) and therefore must also reject it here. They also argue that the BIA should not have used the affirmance-without-opinion procedure because the issues on appeal are substantial, not controlled by BIA precedent, and present a novel fact situation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). We reject those contentions as well, based on our analysis of the merits of petitioners' case. 12 To be eligible for asylum, an alien must first establish his status as a refugee. Wiransane, 366 F.3d at 893. To establish refugee status, the applicant must demonstrate that he has suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of [future] persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Persecution under this section means not only persecution by the government but also by a non-governmental group that the government is unwilling or unable to control. Batalova v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1246, 1253 (10th Cir.2004) (quotation omitted). Aliens basing their asylum claims upon a well-founded fear of future persecution must show both a genuine, subjective fear of persecution, and an objective basis by credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record, of facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution. Wiransane, 366 F.3d at 893 (quotation omitted). 13 We review the IJ's factual findings for substantial evidence in the record. Nguyen v. INS, 991 F.2d 621, 625 (10th Cir.1993). The BIA's findings of fact are conclusive unless the record demonstrates that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We will not reverse the agency's decision unless the evidence compels the conclusion that petitioners have a well-founded fear of persecution because of one of the protected grounds. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).