
    Deedar Ali JAMAL; Nabath Jamal, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60452.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 10, 2004.
    Joshua Turin, Sondra Mae Turin, Turin, Turin & Olinger, Dallas, TX, for Petitioners.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Regina Byrd, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipolito Acosta, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    John Ashcroft, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Deedar Ali Jamal and Nabath Jamal, citizens of Pakistan, petition for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny their applications for asylum and cancellation of removal. Although the Jamals were denied all forms of available relief, they limit their challenge to the denial of their asylum claim. Moreover, because Nabath Jamal’s asylum claim is dependent upon Deedar Jamal’s asylum claim, it is only necessary to consider Deedar’s eligibility for asylum.

We review legal conclusions de novo and findings of fact for substantial evidence. We will not reverse a BIA decision unless the evidence is “ ‘so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’ ” The Attorney General may grant asylum to refugees. A refugee is a person who is outside of his or her country and is unable or unwilling to return “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion... ,” To prove a well-founded fear of persecution, the alien must show that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would fear persecution if deported.

Based on the IJ’s findings, the BIA concluded that Deedar did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on any of the statutorily-enumerated grounds. After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the record does not compel a contrary conclusion.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir.2001).
     
      
      . Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)).
     
      
      . 8U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1).
     
      
      . 8U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
     
      
      . Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir.1997).
     