Constanza
Constanza v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Josefa Constanza and Maira Constanza, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum and withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 (a) and 1253(h). 1 Because the transitional rules apply, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review for substantial evidence, Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 861-862 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.
Petitioners’ contention that the assault suffered by petitioners in 1983 constituted past persecution on account of imputed political opinion lacks merit. The evidence presented does not compel the conclusion that petitioners suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of political opinion, actual or imputed. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners were not eligible for asylum. See id.