Isaac Dedesha Mauuso v. JANET RENO, Attorney General; U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ISAAC DEDESHA MAUUSO,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 99-2668
JANET RENO, Attorney General; U.S.
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(No. A72-418-268)
Submitted: August 29, 2000
Decided: September 15, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Enid Gonzalez Aleman, LAW OFFICES OF ENID GONZALEZ
ALEMAN, Washington, D.C.; Karen T. Grisez, FRIED, FRANK,
HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON, Washington, D.C., for Peti-
tioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Joan E.
Smiley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Cindy S. Ferrier, Office of Immi-
gration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________

-- 1 of 3 --

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Isaac Dedesha Mauuso petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his application for
asylum and withholding of deportation. Mauuso contends he qualified
for relief because of past persecution under the system of apartheid
that formerly existed in his native South Africa and due to the murder
of his family by Zulu warriors of the Inkata Freedom Party (IFP). We
review the Board's denial of relief for substantial evidence. See 8
U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994).* Even if Mauuso's experiences
amounted to past persecution, we find any presumption of a well-
founded fear of future persecution to be sufficiently rebutted by evi-
dence of dramatic changes in country conditions. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.13(b)(2) (2000). Because of the changes in South Africa and
the possibility Mauuso could relocate to a new part of the country, we
find he has no objective basis for a well-founded fear of persecution
in South Africa today. See id.; Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211,
235 (BIA 1985).
Mauuso also disagrees with the Board's finding that he was not
entitled to asylum for humanitarian reasons based on past persecution
alone. We find substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion
that Mauuso's situation, either due to his suffering under apartheid or
due to his family's murder, was not so severe that repatriation would
be inhumane. See Baka v. INS, 963 F.2d 1376, 1379 (10th Cir. 1992);
Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16 (BIA 1989). Accordingly we
_________________________________________________________________
*We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal
Immigration Reform Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)
effective April 1, 1997. Because this case was in transition at the time
the IIRIRA was passed, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) is still applicable here
under the terms of the transitional rules contained in § 309(c) of the
IIRIRA.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

affirm the Board's order. We dispense 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
3

-- 3 of 3 --