
    Marcos Washington CUBAS; Maria De Carmen Monsalve De Cubas; Marie Ella Cubas, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-61013.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Jan. 4, 2005.
    Gloria Sarahi Echevarria, Houston, TX, for Petitioners.
    David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Barry Joseph Pettinato, U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Marcos Washington Cubas, his wife, Maria De Carmen Monsalve De Cubas, and their daughter, Marie Ella Cubas, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) opinion that affirmed the decision of the immigration judge denying Cubas asylum and withholding of removal.

The Cubases argues that the immigration judge’s finding that Cubas failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution is not supported by substantial evidence in light of his testimony and the evidence he submitted at the immigration hearing. We review the immigration judge’s decision because the BIA summarily affirmed the immigration judge’s decision, thereby making it the final agency decision. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir.2003). We will uphold the immigration judge’s determination that Cuba is not eligible for asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence. Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994). To reverse the immigration judge’s determination that Cubas is not eligible for asylum, he must demonstrate the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994). Cubas has failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     