UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2078
ELIZABETH DESTA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A74-638-996)
Submitted: May 18, 1999 Decided: May 27, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, UBOM, WHITE & ROBERTS, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Division, Michelle Gluck, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mary
Jane Candaux, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DE-
PARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Elizabeth Desta seeks a review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying relief on her application for
asylum and withholding of deportation. The Board’s determination
that Desta is not eligible for asylum must be upheld if the
determination is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and pro-
bative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1105a(a)(4) (1994). The decision may be reversed only if the
evidence presented by Desta was such that a reasonable fact finder
would have to conclude that the requisite persecution or fear of
persecution existed. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992). The Board concluded Desta failed to meet her burden of
proving she was persecuted on account of protected grounds. Our
review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based
upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Because
Desta failed to show entitlement to asylum, she cannot meet the
higher standard for withholding deportation. See INS v. Cardoza-
Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-32 (1987).
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. We dis-
pense 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
2