IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60119
Summary Calendar
PETRE APOSTOL,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A72 021 308 )
_______________________________________________________
October 7, 2002
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petre Apostol, a Romanian national and citizen, appeals the decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying him political asylum and withholding of
deportation. Substantial evidence supports the findings of the Immigration Judge as
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
adopted by the BIA. Thus, the denial of Apostol’s asylum application was not an abuse
of discretion, and we affirm.
In order to be eligible for asylum, an alien must establish that he is a “refugee”
within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act.. This requires a showing
that the alien is unwilling or unable to return to his country because of persecution, or a
well-founded fear of persecution, on account of his race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. §§
1101(a)(42)(A) (1999).
We review the factual findings of the BIA for substantial evidence. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). In asylum cases, we will reverse only when the
evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear
of persecution. Id.
Apostol first argues that he shouldered his burden of establishing past persecution
based on his political opinion. In 1984, Apostol planned to flee Romania. He was
detained for three days, interrogated by government officials for no more than two hours
each day, and threatened but not physically mistreated. In 1990, Apostol observed a
clash between miners and pro-democracy demonstrators. While attempting to escape the
ruckus, Apostol fell and broke his leg. The police took him into custody, held him for
about four hours, questioned him for one hour, and then released him. He was not given
medical treatment during his detention. We concur with the BIA that these allegations
do not rise to the level of past persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.
2
2000) (holding that threats are not normally sufficient to constitute persecution). We also
note that Apostol’s testimony does not compel the conclusion that the actions of the
government were taken because of his political opinion; in the first instance, he was
attempting to illegally exit Romania and in the second instance he was questioned about
looting that occurred during the miner’s riot.
Apostol next argues that the BIA erred by finding he failed to establish a well-
founded fear of persecution if deported to Romania. The Immigration Judge found that
Apostol’s belief that Romania is still the kind of state in which he might be persecuted for
his political opinion was not supported by his testimony or any documentation in the
record. We agree that Apostol has not met his burden of demonstrating a reasonable
possibility that he will be persecuted if he returns to Romania. Cf. Roman v. INS, 233
F.3d 1027, 1035-36 (7th Cir. 2000); Tamas-Mercea v. Reno, 222 F.3d 417, 427 (7th Cir.
2000) (both holding that an alien had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution
in Romania because of the changed conditions in that country).
Finally, Apostol contends the BIA erred by failing to give sufficient weight to
evidence presented by him. The evidence presented by Apostol does not compel the
conclusion that he was persecuted in the past or has a well-founded fear of persecution if
he is deported to Romania. The Immigration Judge’s decision, as adopted by the BIA,
was well-reasoned and supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the BIA.
AFFIRMED.
3
4