UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

NOE RODINA-POBLETE,
Petitioner,

v.
                                                                        No. 98-2534
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A70-484-466)

Submitted: April 20, 1999

Decided: May 5, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and KING, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Arnedo S. Valera, Mark S. Loria, VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Falls
Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney
General, Terri J. Scadron, Senior Litigation Counsel, John D. Wil-
liams, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Noe Rodina-Poblete petitions for review of a final order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his application for
suspension of deportation and his application for asylum and with-
holding of deportation. Rodina-Poblete first contends that the Board
abused its discretion in denying him relief in the form of suspension
of deportation when it determined that he failed to demonstrate
extreme hardship. Under § 309(c)(4)(E) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No.
104-128, 110 Stat. 3009, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board's
discretionary decision to deny relief. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d
1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 1997).

Rodina-Poblete next takes issue with the Board's finding that he
failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution and thus
qualify for asylum and withholding of deportation. After a thorough
review of the record, we conclude substantial evidence supports the
Board's finding that Rodina-Poblete lacks an objective basis to fear
persecution in the Philippines today. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4)
(1994);* INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987);
Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995,
999 (4th Cir.1992). We accordingly affirm the Board's order. 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
_________________________________________________________________
*We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the 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 under
the terms of the transitional rules contained in§ 309(c) of the IIRIRA.

                    2
00000<ss2,BF> 00000<ss3,RO> 00000<ss4,BF> 00000<ss5,RO> 00000<ss6,RO> 00000<ss7,IT> 00000<ss8,RO> 00000<ss9,RO>
01980<ss10,BF> 00000<ss11,RO> 00000<ss12,RO> 00000<ss13,BF> 00000
